IS£I 

HZ4Z 


’! 

I* 


■<1 


• ^ 


V 


s ■ 


I 


« 


L--/ 


, - . , ' 


'V 


' , . ' 7^‘t#  " 


/ 


THE  REPUTATION  OF  ALEXANDER  POPE  FROM  1750  TO  1800 


BY 


MINNIE  FRANCES  HARRIS 
A.  B.  Cartha(^e  College,  1920 


THESIS 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 

Degree  of 

MASTER  OF  ARTS 
IN  ENGLISH 

IN 

THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


1921 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/reputationofalexOOharr 


^Er  2 1 


\^1\ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 


i 


A y 


.191;^ 


I HEREBY  RECOMMEND  THAT  THE  THESIS  PREPARED  UNDER  MY 

SUPERVISION  BY . 2^ 

ENTITLED 


A'  /Q^- 


BE  ACCEPTED  AS  FULFILLING  THIS  PART  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 


Head  of  Department 


Recommendation  concurred  in* 


Committee 


on 


Final  Examination* 


*Required  for  doctor’s  degree  but  not  for  master’s 

4;  ^ j L-  / 3 


r A 


‘ » -k  ' : . jif. 

iJssfc;  r,-x^"'j9t4:rri'  ‘ 

W ' • 


Vs  . I 


I 


arovtr jai  ho . YTiaaa v i wu 


W"T- 


>V 


. . JOOH3&  BTAkUaAflO  nm 

*iW' 

■'^';f  .,' .'  '■  V . '■' 

‘ . •«*  '>  ^ '5  v;  ’ ■ . . ^ ' 

.,  . ■ 'v 

ifciTt'V;  ■*■•>>;• 


li 


>!  ' 


A 


, ■ Is  _» 

< . ^V,;1 


fM  «5KlW  3HT.1VHT  Cr/13>/MOa?!H  YH3<r2IM  I V 

^ ^ ■V.S  I ‘.  '‘v  Hi 


a3JTJT’Jl5l| 


.V 


■--  ^V.  ^ 

i>  * * , 

■'  ii,* 


V *>  1 


; ^ 


f 


Ekiaj  ’ I i usk  -S -rf™*  .-r-»  ^*p!WS  *ni  noh«b^i»fiira«y»{9 

. . .i-,  ■ 


» 

•4ilt(n<no0 


•.ioimiikrtiix3  IwriH 

^4S,Vf *S3B  v’;  ■' isIlT 


<1  ' 1,  I ^ 

^ /V  - -% 


.r* 


,/»'J 


/ • • !•»**«  m)  »fi«  *014  wK*!  «N«H46  *4 


f. 


COKTENTS 


page 

Introduction ...1 

Chapter  I. 

Joseph  Wart on's  "Essay  on  the  Genius  and  Writings 

of  Tope.  "•••••• 5 

Chapter  II. 

Owen  Ruffhead's  "Life  of  Pope" 20 

Chapter  III. 

Hear  the  Close  of  the  Century 34 

Conclusion 54 

Bibliography 56 


!■  / . , ■♦i 

.■•f  > 
>.  * 

*f 


,87riiv 


A*- 


■i-.i 

.V  * ' 

X.  ^ * .col^’ocv.bita^ 


wyxMii*  fiax5  Hutat^  oif*  iro  vaasiP  %’iito^‘xall  x1q«i»o^C 

e ^.9in\  ft> 

S h'VV  * 

■■  ' —'rt 


-1- 


THE  REPUTATION  OP  ALEXANDER  POPE  PROM  1750-1800, 

The  works  of  Alexander  Pope  have  given  rise  to  a more  var- 
ied criticism  than  perhaps  those  of  any  other  poet.  Some  critics 
place  him  as  one  of  our  master  poets;  while  others  scarcely  give 
him  the  title  of  poet.  Some  placed  him  near  the  level  of  Shake- 
speare and  Milton,  while  Joseph  War  ton  in  '*Essays  and  Writings  of 
Pope”  said,  ”The  sublime  and  the  pathetic  are  the  two  chief  nerves 
of  all  genuine  poesy.  But  what  is  there  transcendently  sublime  or 
pathetic  in  Pope?” 

To  account  for  this  wide  divergence  in  opinion  we  have 
only  to  notice  the  different  times  when  these  statements  were  made. 
If  we  take  the  criticisms  of  Pope  during  the  Classical  Age,  or 
v/hat  is  more  often  termed  the  ”Age  of  Pope,”  we  get  a far  different 
result  than  upon  taking  the  criticisms  of  his  works  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  Eighteenth  century, 

'''  No  author  ever  had  so  much  fame  in  his  own  life-time  as 
did  Pope,  unless  it  be  Voltaire,  Milton  never  had  great  popularity 
nor  an  age  of  his  own  as  Pope  did.  Although  Dryden  and  Pope  wrote 
in  much  the  same  style,  it  was  lope  who  brought  the  methods  of 
Dryden  to  great  perfection  and  was  accepted  sovereign  of  the  epoch 


.coal -0.^71  apjTH  aio^i  %o  .m^ATursa 

■>'’v 

;v  i '’-j 

-tjBv  o:coiii  4 nai-x  /xeylg  c*f/srf  'teJba^;>lA  io  sjLv>^  0^ 


ensioe  . t<5o<t  *i9ii^o  ^0  ^aod&  e<ftidr^'i  aac'J  taoZoi^lio  !b»l: 
BriT^  \It»ox»ca  erarfdo  to^»«ci  ^iro  lo  a«o  3^ 

-eolaifti  "to  It>val  o<lt  •xijQa  wlrf  5ooaX^  ,tao^  lo  ocCJ^.flcrlrf 

’to  iaB'  axoa^l*  SLt  oc^'ui^W  iff^^eoL  ^Xtilw  laottllK  fitta  eido^c 

.s6*noii  lolxfo  00^  od^“  axa  oXtc’riXAq  ham  BtaltdoB  ^dT  ,Mb8 

•X.0  mnllduB  Btadf  fil  ^advi  ^bH  .xaa^l  ooltJiioS  IJa-rJo 

’'?oqx>f  al 

DYBCi  9W  XtO^flUqO  ttjt  6Oii03^ 9Vi:li  Ofcia  Sirf^  *10^  ^£IX>000jS 

■ J>  . ^ 

oiiofr  Qj-iXQOToXsile  adaitf  ajdii  Ijiciolxlfi  diw  oel^Ofr 

-to  >sA  XaOi>eedIO  anif  ^sitirX  oqc^  to  anjaXolifi-co  ectt  %J 

» ■u.  • ■'  ■ ■ ' '-^  4 y ■ 

f zB  tolliJih  0 tog  »w  V<?^i  lo  i>gA*'  orftf  toarrot  nano  ertoa  sl 

'loi’taX  orf?  3l,  aaC-row  ai^  to  '8«eXoltlto  arft  galatat  aoqii  :ustiJ  tiffs'^ 

* -•*■  ■■■;»«  ■•’,  ■^'  * ' '■  • ‘ 

* ‘ .Xxutjctoo  rf;fao«t/fgXa  orit  lo 


*’'S  ” 


Bii 


" % 


affl£t~otXX  flwo  oli  tfl  «aj»t  d^c'  0^  i$a^, -lovo  cR 

'-p^#;,  . > - iiAA' 

TtXxaXu'Toq  tBoa-g  ioii  -jevoot  aotllXJ  .®xXatXo7  &<f  tX  aaoXtur  (O^o*! 
f'  W' 

r ©tO'tT.  ofoj  fcoft.floJ&XTO  ngiioxftXA  .r»A‘  eqoX  bb  tiwo *^'eXtf  to  ob,  ■totr 

■ ' ’ V’  V-,  ' 

‘ to  ai/Ofl'Xect  erft  trigi&oid’  orfw  oq:ot  8Bw  ti  orft  .doi/ffl 

i(00^8  Odt  io  XtgX6T®V08  Xot^OOBB  OBW  fciW  XIOl^ OOl'tlK^  tAOtg  Ot  rteiXXO 


-2- 


of  connoisseurs  and  critics.  Pope,  perhaps,  held  a higher  place 
in  literature  in  his  ovm  day  than  Lord  Tennyson  has  held  in  ours, 
for  Tennyson  had  nohle  rivals  and  friends  who  came  near  to  him  in 
fame,  while  Pope,  until  the  publication  of  Thompson’s  ’’Seasons” 
in  1730,  stood  alone  in  poetical  reputation. 

This  with  Thomas  TTarton’s  ’’Observations  on  the  ’Pairy  Q,ueen’,” 
and  ”Essays  and  Writings  of  Pope”  by  Joseph  Warton  night  be  said 
to  be  the  first  works  of  importance  that  led  to  the  roraantio  move- 
ment. With  the  coming  of  this  movement  we  cannot  help  but  recog- 
ni?:e  the  waning  in  Pope’s  influence.^ 

This  decrease  in  the  power  of  Pope  is  most  obviously  seen 
in  the  editions  of  his  works.  Of  the  collected  works  of  Pope  there 
were  eleven  editions  before  1750*  Prom  1751  to  1770  there  v/ere 
fourteen  editions, and  each  publication  was  comprised  of  from  four 
to  ten  volumes;  the  greater  majority  being  taken  from  Mr.  Warburtonfe 
edition,  which  appeared  in  1751.  Between  1770  and  1800  there  were 
no  editions  of  Pope’s  collected  works’,  but  three  of  his  poetical 
works  (incomplete)  and  two  of  hie  complete  poetical  works  appeared. 
Many  of  his  poems  were  published  in "British  Poets"  (1773)  and 
"Poets  of  Great  Britain"  (1782)  by  Bell;  "The  Works  of  the  English 
Poets"  (1779)  by  Johnson;  and  "A  Complete  Edition  of  the  Poets  of 
Great  Britain"  (1793)  by  Anderson.  Of  the  editions  that  contained 
two  or  more  of  Pope’s  poems  there  were  nine  edited  before  1754,  and 
six  edited  between  1754  and  1800.  Thus  we  see  the  decline  in  the 
editions  of  his  works  from  the  first  half  of  the  Eighteenth  century 
to  the  last  half,  but  the  greatest  decline  of  his  collected  v/orks 


10 

■[  t b£'?"i  , njaJ'j  . * . tirta  " i.,  • - 

, i.  ^Xo.’I  ; . roT’ ‘>:r.  siwt  lin  ::i  art'  ■^'zc  -j  :i  !*■ 

ni  .ui:l  r:*  rx?  Jiu^  dlMiVtrg  'm;oo.i  ;.,-■'{  x<'  .'■  ,:<j7  T^-' 

” an  :• .'.’ /i  aT  *^o  .1  * ooilU'Uq  -•‘••''t  fl-f-ar  , _r'i  *j  £!  jv 

. 7 M >'. .» L'cjs  1 To  a i j*©  0 f X O'T  ) I .-  u c 0 + % , r: ' 

-C'-  • •■’'■ ' ■•-  ••JO  c -r  flies  Vi;  ffrfO*» 

rtjD:'  L"''  :!'s/e*£xi7?  ;'i«;U'''L  Tcf  '‘e»  lO  14 1'l'*  ■uy;-‘'-'S  jl*’ “?i; 

- •v.jn  cl^•:-i.4iIO^■  ©.'i'-t  oe  f-o.:  t 5 0:r3.>‘to::xr»i;  ':o  jytTcrr-  iR'xi’!  0:  .:  wc'  “* 
.ilsr'  Ivijnro  e v -r-^irt  x : ;,ni.i'  j<j  ©li^  • ••-.■ 

I':...  ■:  . ni ' 

.'r©f'U  vI^^ufolToTo  V-or*  3x  ‘ '^w>  -roTyg-v^  or(t  3 - -cLfT 

’ V'i'j 'fS^o^  'I  ' a>(‘iorv  J>3e':aiIco  o,-M  "^0  . Xl')yf  si,’  Jo  i'xoi:' 1‘ '4  r 

. . 9%o  '4  O.VKL  o4  r oi--?  , OC .'  f ©‘tolucT  -TOli:*:  C.  'It-vo  C3  >j  •• 

liJCi  ".  ■:  ntiq^OQ  ,aaw  rlosi*-j  z.  ^ •;TOJ:eib0 

{not'xr:f*r  v-i  •■-ojL'j:  najfai  Ito ; 303i.^'-C■T  ;fc:>  0 

•'..  -j.,-  aZBui  0C*‘*I  >.-Xii  OV7X  ::x.-j'  ' ■ . 12 VX  £tl  bat^sfiq.^  ££&••'  _ 

C.i-olvloo^- \.:.r:  " ..  ; ■ ..v  bo:  :-CCoo  'i'"  onoi  + Iixf  on 

.:^9'zzoizz  Jjcoieaoq  . ; i<’  ^.0  b::^  (aJ-sI  t^xn  c rt  1 ) 

finiT  1}  ’*  art©o*I ‘ff'^:,!:;M'rS*' ni  l»«ifdi.Xd‘y':i  o*t©*.r  emt  ■ ai.i  ■■.  ■ " 

ofjl  ri-rc-^  adT**  ixlsK  ' •; ir-r:  '^o.  ce^o-:*’ 

■lo  ae6o*J  Dili  Jo  noielf^  Oj a A"  . 

.’srfixsA.'rOf)  t*:ne  a.iotJKbts  ^ii4  ’Vf-  . i vcf  ' «nh.x;  xia 

^^:  .'xTr  aTcxC’-f  b:.‘-^i:-.  oxxirt.  910W  ote.Cv  ■■  ’ ;.^o5,  •*’A  "^-iors  ■ 'io  0- 

rl'^  .it  ©:'Tiri5©£>  vxr  9,7  -01U.  .no.'ll  br:c  >7'?  I Saeibr  V: 

ie  ;t;r>e-i  ■•' IH  Jo  Jlxai  ^'d’xiJ  -y'  A n:cT't  Pixor  'iri  Jo  . 

•::r:  :■.  aiiioc'r't’  "xx  lo  o'.lr;>©5  ^y  . :)»"'■  :«?-£i  AasI  »rfA  c.: 


-3- 


was  from  1770  to  1800  when  there  were  no  publications. 

The  “Dunciad”  had  great  popularity  in  the  first  half  of  the 
century  but  not  so  in  the  latter  half.  In  1728  there  were  four  ed- 
itions, nine  editions  in  1729,  eight  in  1742,  and  one  in  German  in 
1747.  Eetv;een  1725  and  1735  there  v/ere  over  a dozen  books  of  essays 
and  criticisms  v.Titten  on  the  "Dunciad."  This  shows  to  what  an 
extent  it  was  being  read  and  discussed.  But  after  1747  to  the  end 
of  the  century  there  was  but  one  edition  that  appeared  and  that  was 
in  French. 

Of  ”Eloisa  and  Abelard"  there  appeared  but  one  edition  in 
English  betv/een  1770  and  1805.  There  v/as  an  edition  in  English, 
French,  and  Italian  in  1791;  one  in  English  and  French  in  1796; 

1795,  one  in  French;  and  in  1780  one  in  German,  but  was  only  one 
in  English. 

Of  the  "Essay  on  Criticism"  there  was  an  English  and  German 
edition  in  1745,  and  four  Italian  editions  before  1760.  Of  English 
editions  there  were  three  before  1750,  one  in  1751,  eind  that  was 
all  for  a hundred  years. 

Of  all  of  Pope’s  works,  the  "Essay  on  Man"  had  more  editions 
from  1750  to  1800  than  any  of  his  other  works.  Before  1750  there 
had  appeared  eleven  editions  in  English;  one  in  French  and  English; 
in  the  English  and  German  there  was  one;  one  in  French  and  German; 
two  in  French.  After  1750  there  appeared  fourteen  English  editions; 
two  French;  one  English  and  German  edition;  one  in  German;  one  in 
English  and  Italian;  two  in  Dutch;  three  in  Italian;  and  two  in 
Latin.  We  see  there  were  not  only  more  English  editions  in  the 
last  of  the  century,  but  more  foreign  editions  as  well.  This, 


-4- 


howerer,  is  unusual  and  is  the  only  instance  where  it  occurs. 

The  ’’Rape  of  the  Lock”  had  fewer  editions  in  the  last  half 
of  the  century  than  any  of  Pope’s  other  important  works.  Before 
1750  there  were  six  English  editions;  two  in  French;  two  in  Ital- 
ian; and  one  in  German.  But  after  1750  there  were  only  two 
English  editions  and  one  foreign  edition  in  Butch.  This  is  peculiar 
since  it,  more  than  any  of  his  works,  shows  romantic  tendencies. 

Not  only  in  the  more  noted  works  of  Pope  is  this  decrease 
in  publications  shown,  hut  also  in  his  minor  works.  Before  1750 
there  were  two  editions  of  ”¥indsor  Forest,”  hut  not  another  until 
one  in  1794.  Of  ’’Imitations  of  Horace”  there  were  eleven  editions 
before  1750,  hut  there  were  none  after  that,  nor  were  there  any  of 
”0de  on  St. Cecilia’S  Bay”  after  1750. 

Because  there  were  few  editions  of  Pope’s  works  during  the 
last  half  of  the  century  in  comparison  to  the  first  half,  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  Pope’s  influence  was  entirely  gone.  However, 
it  does  show  us  that,  although  there  were  enough  editions  to  supply 
the  people  that  read  Pope,  there  was  not  a demand  for  Pope’s  works 
as  there  had  been  previously,  nor  were  the  public  in  general  read- 
ing Pope. 


"■  *iirf  i&al  f • ' :^^  v'.  '•..•jK  ".load  o/-'’  "!o  ''q.sfi’’  dffT 

^''CO".  . ‘'^'  W strtfi^T.  ir/"'  c 'I  •’i  o \' 'ijs.  r ;-'.':t  vtr^.v-jo  i 

-'..‘I  ,-:a  t»w  ; rr.  \jyri  ; nri'>r^  it»t>  ; a?X5.r<!;i  '?".8r  t <;C^  " 

err*  ^frio  02?  X 'XOj'tfl  JirS  . ..„,sX^  r?i  ©ao  \(W‘ 

eX"  aiiJ"'  . tait  r;X  i'  9rro  blUi  • a c It  its  iii»j^,ni 

♦ rois^ :•••'•  ■ i r.ii  9T0f  , 'to  v^ii;  ni><’w  ©*£ ' , * * o-'-li. 

ain^  ^rX  ' Tc'^r  ::? -.oc?  oifvt  42  •■ 

*■ 

C.  'I  j'ro’:-^"  . -Ztow  f-iif"  yX  ) -,■  Xi/T  /":i!'oKa 

'‘id’rrij  'isrr^cr.'i  .•  t.  •';  Xacf  ■.Xas'r;*^  'xooeriJWF**  •'?■'  s.;  jX*  ?•  "*  &:or 

eaci;!  :_>£?  f;»-v3lc  "cos^fcil  I0  s*t *^0  , r r?i  r.cic 

?c  v-rn,'  o"£-3i:t  voX^T-:*  s.'Y'.'ii  . j*'is?r  010  iXt  X ero^iW 

. c’',  X ^ -O  efcO” 

'i 

liili'ivb  iJ>:*-:c’V  Oc  vV.?  vajjnooS 

-'.••••  ' 
Ct'j.t  ■‘X'  ifnZJ  t>di  0^-  i-ton  Xxaqr*.;^  t or.X  ':  • ‘i  ."Kr: 

■ '7'  ' ' ” * 

, . •,]  fST  W ffd  ■ • ? O’  ioi/  .rSta  i <.  * ■*<;?  0*1  j‘:‘"n'X 

■'•'  •ucliil  ' \yf'<-:w  a*if  i xtaori*  Xa  , ' t'"  ea  -.''C/Ii 

S5''C“-  ' ‘ *3l>  fi  ierr  ajsr/  G'.::"''-  , ' Xiij'x  X.a.Xi  o’X£^..o<|: 

, • 

:^‘ion'jy.  '.‘.1  ::^"-:':'X  ©tsr  '£'^'  . ‘4,  . ao-7.c  c. 


* 


-5- 


CHAPTSR  Om. 

Joseph  Warton’s  ’’Essay  on  the  Genius  and  Writings  of  Pope.” 

In  the  present  day  there  is  still  much  discussion  as  to 
which  of  the  criticisms  written  by  the  Wartons,  dealt- the  greatest 
blows  to  the  classical  standards  of  poetry.  The  criticisms  set 
forth  by  Thomas  Warton  in  his  ’’Observations  on  the  ’Eairy  i^ueen’  ” 
were  considered  by  many  to  hare  held  this  place.^  Although  his 
work  may  have  been  of  great  historical  value,  yet  it  was  not  as 
direct  a criticism  on  Pope,  nor  was  it  so  opposed  to  the  conventicns 
of  the  age  as  was  Joseph’s  ”Sssay  on  Pope.” 

This  ’’Essay”  published  in  1756,  was  the  first  severe  crit- 
icism made  upon  the  reputation  of  this  idolized  poet.  Hitherto 
the  public  had  lauded  him  almost  unanimously.  The  discussions 
concerning  his  works  had  for  the  most  part  been  those  of  commenda- 
tion, with  the  exception  of  attacks  made  by  Dennis  and  Addison, 
which  were  the  results  rather  of  personal  enmity  than  a disapproval 
of  his  works.  Under  these  conditions  it  was  only  to  be  expected 
that  the  appearance  of  this  unusual  and  startling  criticism  should 
create  a furor  in  the  minds  of  the  people. 

Although  the  ’’Essay”  contains  much  incidental  praise  of  Pope, 
it  depreciates  the  order  of  poetry  of  which  Pope  was  the  most 
"^3:*illisnt  representative.  It  seems  to  be  ?7arton’s  desire  to  over- 
throw the  school  of  Pope  and  to  substitute  Spenser,  Shakespeare, 

1 ’’Thomas  Warton"  by  Clarissa  Rinaker. 


-.vW  -tiJ  j:  'I:n 


..  : ..«.  ••:  i;.:£^.;’cislf->  ^ j,':eaf.7q  ^ 

» Du»i'-  . ^''£15^  au  OXOi^.^'Ip  •if:^ 

■}o,i  U1  ni. '■- i,V’.'Ca  fc.-.'*  . ,.-* ‘PC'  « r*-':'! '.a.:  £o  orf^ 

«_  »:-i?5L-iv  V- •:/;‘g;'»  ..  L;..  rcaccfO'’  IL'  ^'i.  cc;^-i.-r  C.u\i^crrr  -^cf 

G . ^*vcc;{^ XA  •' . ^o:^£z  • • iri~  ^i:c»u  "’v;:  . • vtf  ;c 


.c-thlOP  f?r  q L>t  tPiii'qqij  '-' e jX  C.jW  'iC  t 


il  .-ro  ^ s j 


s/jr  35?  £ <U  ’’xca?::” 


cd’V'-  :i*  ’■•^*  ,w9>'-  -S.'*’. -tI  f'.jf»i^  s.ti..-  *1-  rrol^iP-^^flo'i  - 

a."v.:..;«.vP8i6  S-'  . •, . ^«o«i,Dr  n;i:l  fee  '?W‘'  C r.-r 

;.  CV  ■!•••.  yncr:.t  ,iW:*  -"Ir  ^3icv  ' x J gn  "'r:cr'  , o 

■•  ■:■  .-r.  "1 0 :tolicooK'^ 

:.'»U*f  Vc'  X-i-’IS  iO  '■£  wf^f?'X  £■.  J 9'Id  ' ' - 


*V:- 


' ■ T ■ « 


■t  vx-o  cx>?ir  -^k,r- K-^Ucrca  t- on?  . ’'x 


j-.X^.'^^rr  KX* j. cX Jr i. '5 r.'^'‘:"ftXL  isftx, , <’x$i'*’itfrtX'  t;ir{\f  oorr.^'G'''- _ _ sr.»  X'-  -5 


.■  xqooc  0,£i  -'-»  afenir  - rti  'text 


to  Jj- tr.9i'.f:cc<  I nom  t^.^i-SJ^froo  ♦’Y>v;aL”  p;fi  r*,,, 


■;or3  0£i: 


J »V* 


•»  . ',  *r*i'  ^ 


I;-. 


...  t',-  ..‘xe--  a.!'  i.}  (a:r.-r# ..-j;#r.»-')<*?%C»»  ■rislXn^  ' 


coq  ^ *ro.*“'.aO  e'''{i}’ 


./• . ."  < 


?■  v X--.c*nq*  r.'.^  r'VX  o 


. .-  .fv-'m  ALOixi.-X?  ^ix^Tor-rr’*  ‘X 


''  racflOMMm 


P»v  -Jfr 


-6- 


and  Milton  as  models  for  the  young  poets.  The  tendency  is  to  hrealc 
away  from  the  classical  standards  to  the  freer  spirit  of  a new 
romanticism. 

The  central  purpose  of  Warton’s  work  is  to  distinguish  the 
kinds  of  poetry  and  their  relative  values,  and  to  establish  Pope’s 
rank  by  assigning  him  to  his  kind.  ^ Until  this  book  appeared,  Pope 
had  been  considered  supreme  among  living  English  writers,  and  it 
was  hardly  questioned  that  he  ranked  among  the  greatest  poets  of 
all  ages.  Warton  disagreed  with  this  prevalent  opinion.  He 
placed  Pope  rather  among  secondary  authors  and  reserved  first  place 
for  Spenser,  Shakespeare, and  Milton. 

These  older  authors  had  long  been  greatly  criticized  and 
underrated  by  leaders  in  the  Augustan  age.  The  pseudo-classical 
critics  believed  that  definite  rules  should  be  followed  in  writing. 
Spenser,  Shakespeare,  and  Milton  they  believed  were  unfortunate  in 
not  having  sound  principles  by  which  to  be  guided.  Had  they  lived 
in  the  classical  age  and  imitated  the  models  rather  than  turning 
to  nature,  their  reputation  would  not  have  suffered  as  it  did. 
Dryden  thought  to  improve  Milton’s  "Paradise  Lost"  by  making  it 
conform  to  the  conventions  of  the  age,  and  he  did  rewrite  it  using 
the  heroic-couplet.  Addison  in  the  "Spectator"  praises  Milton 
in  some  respects,  but  on  the  whole  is  apologetic,  and  complains 
because  he  did  not  end  his  fable  with  satisfaction.  Pope  himself 
looked  down  on  the  Eli^abethian  Age  of  dramatists , and  although 
he  considered  Shakespeare  a genius,  yet  he  thought  him  greatly  hin- 
dered by  having  no  principles  to  go  by,  and  also  by  the  "Barbarous" 
age  itself,  in  which  he  lived. 


o :o'  'li  > J ^ (?5rr  :' fi 

c a '4. f 


/ 'i  0'^  « fC:  ^ Da 


h - T.l# 


tft. 


. • 4 


c 


rftii  ff”;:  ; J a tZ;  ci;  i w s *4  *iW  '4  v JUJIC*  'dv 

r-.'i-^qo'T  .■:ai:MP.t..t'  -'t  t , Ts*!  Iw4.  iw 

V,  ' ■ :^'3C<Tfi  5iw'-‘Q'  . •.  i;i'  J?iif  in  irf  _i,f- i;r.-;i  eSB  VoT  ; 

, -i:  'iniviJ  • -ia  :-moo  tso-j  ■ 5b 

’10  , * .aiiDCB  ,&C'::.iUT;  .•.:  * b^y.  j'  Sijg  \,Lbit:^r  -i8*,’ 

• ‘J 

f . j.yif'jO  w':'?' .!'.’/ Te''-*  y‘.  t f>oc'j  ' • . ^’r* 

C'"  ia*xi'j  r ■v'‘:w  • I- ~ 'zm  -if»  D.fC‘  ^ 

b'ti'  bosiotit^io  ri9j''  \ iqZ  a’sc.'.-ii-  ■i.  -'. 

‘ i'..:o:  ■ii’-'Ip- .’.^^'ssc  on'l'  , o':  1 :ri  .:-: T '.cT  bo^^'rtc-  'L’’ 

*7  ITT*  i-rJt  bsrol/ol  ^i'•o;k'  v '/■^vfiixocf  ^ -.:^4*xo  - 

a-ifirfA'  i-cclnJU' ^'xow  Ifci*  v,d.'*w  fro;^  ::oDwr.-i'5  , •?©  ncte^.  3 

^•jSfevi ; Vtsvy  bli-y  9--S  X**r  rr  brrvce 

v"'--*:'  - (.F.'j  *14  iJ'i:*r  fxciB  t»^'  ^:c.I';^ei:Xo -S4^ 

3 1. 

. •■  ■ :*“ :.  ::«  . -'0  wOK  i>rifcv  Tfsxi^  , ‘ -r  v. 

c» ! ^fTr'^LLiT  V ’’-^■  OvI  9fii.bxuu.  ■'■4’'  -.'aIO^X^::  *rc'icr-\t  :*i; 

V •■.?:. <54:  Si  bib  Oi{  » • sni  1c  axtbiy^ruvr* '.  c 9K-  oS  eno7,'cr. 

r:oi.’  j.M  ©fij  .iu  rrc^ibb-^  . : . r :'-'f  o-olo'xtp.  ©Hi  ; 

.*i*r.l-  : '’qzjiOD  bfi-u  ,.  ' 6X*i  xrc  Sir'f  ,3ioeq.  6ir-.ou  rri 

I.''- iiiv  ^1*^1  :iij'  ^tXL  ccd  "Xb  ©f'^ft^ixjui'oo 
. H'-.i/cHv  Xfl  - . :’>  t*3A  t».'i  iio  rifob  r.-j-''  >X 

1 • ’ . ■ 

-v’i.*7  vj'i*'?-?';’: ■ . t'i  i.iri:cr{;’  ©:£  J^\;.  , - '!aC'V  53-xfl&qeM9aCic.‘:3  bc'robtaxrco 
..  ♦ ' ••  • 

"ni;o-:.  d'X.'.ri*’  • i \;J  OS  Cb  ftrtr  , ; *■  og.  oi  et  r^i  ic;/  I'x-.:  ccr  ^rr  ^rp.-  •'•n'tO'- 


b-rtvil  sH  x,fGl-  \7  ifi  ' ,1-Xe>«i - f 


-7- 


The  apologetic  attitude  toward  these  writers  had  been  prev- 
alent all  through  the  Augustan  Age.  For  Joseph  Warton  to  place 
them  at  the  head  of  all  poets  was  a startling  and  unheard  of  class 
ification.  He  placed  them  there  because  their  works  were  imagin- 
ative and  were  filled  with  the  ’’sublime  and  the  pathetic",  while 
the  poetry  of  Pope  had  neither  *of  these.  He  had  none  of  the 
passionate  sense  of  the  beauties  of  nature,  nor  was  he  a poet  of 
strong  imagination  or  of  great  enthusiasm.  He  lacked  the  deep 
insight  into  the  heart  of  man  which  was  so  characteristic  of  the 
other  three.  The  "sublime  and  pathetic"  which  ’barton  declared 
were  the  two  chief  nerves  of  all  genuine  poetry,  were  not  to  be 
found  in  the  works  of  Pope.  Thus  the  reason  for  placing  him  below 
the  supreme  poets. 

Men  of  less  poetic  tendencies,  but  who  excelled  in  the 
rhetorical  and  didactic  were  placed  in  the  second  group.  Of  this 
group,  composed  of  Pryden,  Prior,  Addison,  Cowley,  Waller,  Garth, 
Fenton,  Gay,  Penhaun,  and  Parnell,  Pope  was  considered  by  Warton  as 
the  best,  because  his  genius  was  particularly  turned  to  the  didac- 
tic and  the  moral,  and  because  he  gave  the  best  work  of  this  kind. 
He  even  excelled  Pryden,  who  was  very  good  in  this  species  of 
writing  and  far  surpassed  all  other  writers  in  this  class.  As  a 
wit,  a critic,  a man  of  observation  and  of  the  world,  he  judged 
others  by  his  own  feelings  and  standards.  His  quick  tact  for 
thought  and  manners  as  established  by  the  forms  and  customs  of 
society,  is  evidenced  throughout  his  ^vorks.  He  was  a poet  of  art, 
but  not  of  nature.  It  was  not  the  manner  in  ^ich  Pope  wrote  that 


'..t 


: -7-'’.  r " :'. 


jj  43  ' 


n:rrf'-' 


< ■ 

-/  ( V“  4 


c 

;‘hi  . 


si: " ^ 


' r Xfc*  *'  ? ' 


: 1 


- r s ^ 4 


•‘-'•tr-tMummiHmUiim 


; ( 


*:} 

V\ 

I ; 


a 


-8- 


Warton  objected  to,  but  it  was  the  kind  of  poetry  he  disliked. 

In  the  third  rank  Warton  placed  Butler,  Swift,  Rochester, 
Donne,  Dorset,  and  Oldham.  These  are  men  of  wit,  haring  excellent 
taste  and  fancy  in  describing  familiar  life,  but  not  the  higher 
scenes  of  poetry. 

In  the  fourth  group  he  placed  Pitt,  Sandys,  Pairfax,  Broome, 
Buckingham,  and  Lansdown.  They  were  ”mere  rersifiers,  however 
smooth  and  mellifluous  some  of  them  may  be  thought  to  have  been.” 
This  enumeration  was  not  intended  as  a complete  classification  of 
writers,  and  in  their  proper  order,  but  to  mark  out  mainly  the 
different  species  of  our  celebrated  writers. 

By  way  of  adverse  criticism,  Warton  speaks  of  Pope’s  facile 
method  in  copying  from  other  authors,  and  it  is  quite  true  that 
the  ideas  of  other  authors  do  predominate  in  his  works.  This  is 
obvious  in  his  "Temple  of  Pame."  This  hint  he  received  from 
Chaucer’s  "BEouse  of  Pame”  though  the  design  is  really  improved  by 
the  hand  of  Pope.  His  "Rape  of  the  Lock"  which  is  the  best  heroic- 
’ comic  poem,  shows  the  influence  of  the  three  following  works; 

"Rape  of  the  Bucket"  by  Alessandro  Tassoni,  the  "Lutrin"  by 
Boileau,  and  Garth’s  "Dispensary."  ' The  imaginative  element  that 
exists  in  this  work  is  mainly  founded  on  the  sylphs  of  Boileau  and 
Garth;  although  Pope  did  not  create  them  he  has  used  them  with 
great  judgment  and  skill. 

Pope  himself  declared  that  all  that  remained  for  him  to  do 
was  merely  to  polish  and  perfect  what  his  predecessors  had  written. 


j Taj;*'  T.‘"C'/ 


T»i.i  r 


Td'  -gr;  , ,X 


: (V.'  itl.  ^ , •■*  *•?*-■ 

trf'!T  : ■ ; I tn.9  i 

V*  • -’If  ,i8‘. '‘  ' 

, ;.* Li<‘« ‘ I'  t V 


T.'-r  , :u-’i‘x'f  , t ’ '■.'I  ''?rr 

‘ii  ’/'ir?'.  , .'  * ifiT  .0  . 'WC'bSrt^t  , 

- c - ^ 

Cc.  X’TE.'OP  A '*i.G  ■'C'.'t  ri’-  :» c kO‘rti“nxx#::s  - 

i* 

r ; '•  f‘:7l/^£T  ^'^0  ^ , ?'  'v  ^o^w-.r  t rtf  1:  , . ' -T7T 

iiSJ'iS-L  J$>x©0  -ao  I-'':  i:e-  T,-;-  ' oi.  ’ 


— ' * ^ ti.  . 


/ '^fT'cd'  ‘■.'i'.i.'i  ■ d -'..  , ■■'  ' ’t0p'fo’i  yrriv*;  I'-o  r-i  Jbs. 

. ;;0V  - iit  r.i  ■■"'i bQZ-~:  . 2'i0;idi-r  a©^d’’-' 

flfOi  'C  ' l O o©*t*  ©f(  '' ":■  • ',  ?*;  . 


■i  X; 


l*<  ■ 


f/S— .rt'iKi  xr--,o-z  i.:.'.  •'.:,.:.aa»h  ^:^UonJ  ”f^..ru,c  l : ».%-s:vO«^ 

Cl  d e©c( ■ *'’  ■■  ct  ir  .-.  0"*\  • j;'?  c •/;••' " ei;'  . i • \ a;.d 

J..tl£>-c  ' :,?  ;<c;’X-J  *:c  '^OriDJJ  n ■’-'■t  0170;-’  C£3'-ru 

V.'  T*"  jiu  :,  ‘.  ' c-rtoioa©  :,/i  ••.  d ';.<9 

vc»  ©■’ id"' . . vTwan’oa’Ri'T''^  3*Jd'''xr:  ■'.!*>  ^ 

. oc^'d  .io  V: .':  ■''t.w  :'r:  „is4  ^ 

r;«r'  '**■•  c -f.-z-ct  doii  f'i'-  .,;  ; ,‘t^-O 

,.  [:i.:  ■■:  ' dnt., 


c: 


.1.  . , ' -r 


Vafi;  rXB  ii.  j 6r'i  "09ti  I "c  ' ' i/i  srq-j" 


i A>f  ‘'.viCf  t‘ 


^^1CI  c f,\'  't'  iw 


. - , I 


ih  '.-J;  oit 


-9- 


Warton  discountenanced  this  attitude.  He  thought,  this  equivalent 
to  stealing  from  other  authors;  and  his  estimation  of  the  poet*s 
writings  was  much  lowered  "because  of  his  lack  of  originality  and  in- 
itiative. He  said  concerning  the  ’’Pastorals”,  that ’’there  was  not 
a single  rural  image  that  was  new, and  the  descriptions  were  trite 
and  common.”  Although  Pope  improved  what  he  "borrowed  from  other 
writers,  yet  Warton  thought  that  his  works  were  not  original  and 
contained  nothing  new. 

Warton  admits  that  in  some  of  the  works  of  Pope  is  seen 
the  tender  and  pathetic  feeling,  "but  not  in  many  instances.  In  a' 
few  cases  where  this  spirit  is  o"bserved  it  is  clearly  a result  of 
the  occasions  when  the  feelings  came  from  the  heart.  Thus  we  find 
this  inspiration  predominating  in  ’’The  Elegy  to  the  Memory  of 
an  Unfortunate  Lady."  Here  the  occasion  for  the  work  was  real 
and  this  reality  seemed  to  "bring  out  the  inward  emotions  of  his 
soul.  The  very  response  of  Pope’s  emotions  at  this  time  seemed  to 
"bear  out  Warton's  maxim;  ’’That  nature  is  more  powerful  than  fancy; 
that  we  can  always  feel  more  than  we  can  imagine;  and  that  the  most 
artificial  fiction  can  give  way  to  truth.” 

Another  fault  that  Warton  found  in  the  poetry  of  Pope,  and 
in  poetry  of  that  time,  . was  excessive  description.  Throughout 
the  classical  age,  description  was  general  and  not  specific,  was 
indefinite,  gave  no  vivid  picture,  and  nothing  was  mentioned  by 
its  common  or  even  its  technical  name.  Poets  might  choose  the 
simplest  of  ideas  and  even  these  were  accepted,  providing  they  were 


jc.'  e*'-' ' s f c ' 'r-orrC'C'  ^ :c  .dII 

/ 

• .V’tJ'  sxdur  arr w ' ^1 »;  I L 0 , • t caw  S>c  ; •. ; ...i  .x  « r ^ 


v-.;-:*-  ?r?  ' / ■ ’'•eT. 

*:{c  ,?>r. jr.'ti  ancsv  i\:c  ’ -j':.' 


^ ii  ,.  ' "'■■'I - V rti';‘  '■  ■ ■ 

jj  :i  . . VI 5 y<Tj’"  r:';  i’orr  i'U'/ 


';  o::vi  :A  ^ 

. if 

,:;  eticN  •■ 

^ '*« 

T .1  - ' 'fer::'  ‘ ■-<  ‘ 


' ■* ri'=3^'t.  a y.Ltc^.'‘o  fc-^  ‘'"Tx-eotfc  ’»■  ii  :>  r ■■.  : >.•  , -I 

'j.'r  '’  "yw  Oi/ir”  .■‘Ti!srl  r;,-.-"  i-5:*  3;  .Lr.?:>’'.  e<i«  m . r "-•'■;  1 i^vS;'  'uli 

x^-uar^  tvi'-^  -‘CT”  rri  rvcli'  ..i.  ..;i 

A-or.-  .'lid?  Tvt  !^  ifi^ccc  ef>t  ert^H  - ' . . • ^ rra-v*  rolrfO 

r;i<'  .;  ; IV'  .’  :• 'icf'  c;t  i Olr  ' ' v;:; 

Oi't  iy  vi'.  ■jrT m oas6%p5',  ■ 'v' OiJT  . '!.;’ce 


VI 

?■-'*  , .:-H  to  v-tJ  .4  '■  "-.f::'- 

• '•,  : : . •'  -1  ’ X'i' 

•.  5 y : c.fi'*  a ' ?•  i.r:  'j' :,:; 

X'-  t L • T D i -J  /i  i>  '■•T  CJS"/'  gfi  ii'::  i c r:  £f>, 

, ?rfy  •.•■  Toc  .'vo  Jtx^JU 
tv,’  yi>r:j  'J.tifclTOl  ...Ow'q^JDOfi 


'(.'z-’i  0.  ■ , ',>»<  w -^6  xT-t ^wiy 

\Hw  nrci^qx'  ■?* 

' 'i.  ’'-■*•  on  €?*"  , ' ‘ '-•-•^nA. 

r 

. ■ ,^-r  -^4;  tv.'Ye  Tio  Vra'ii  •'  ' ‘: 

f oiii>~:'  ..evo  'i;;£  fcanfi'  *lc  ii,e  u< 


( 


f 


-10- 


told  in  an  elegant  manner  and  were  put  upon  a high  and  lofty  plane, 
above  the  comprehension  of  the  average  reader.  This  artificial 
description  was  not  written  unintentionally,  but  in  accordance  with 
the  aim  and  theory  of  all  poets  striving  to  follow  the  example 
given  them  by  inferior  models* 

Warton  held  opposite  views  concerning  description.  He  be- 
lieved, before  Wordsworth,  in  drawing  with  the  eye  upon  the  object. 
He  censured  Pope  because  in  "Windsor  Pores t"  he  described  rural 
beauty  in  general  and  not  the  beauties  peculiar  to  that  forest. 

Pope  lived  very  near  to  this  forest  and  had  every  cpportunity  to 
describe  the  beauties  that  he  actually  saw  there;  but  he  purposely 
avoided  exact  and  specific  description  because  he  had  an  erroneous 
conception  of  the  superiority  of  a generalized  and  abstract  beauty. 
Warton,  owing  to  specific  description  in  poetry,  thinks  the  juven- 
ille  descriptive  poems  of  Milton  are  more  exalted  than  any  of 
Pope's,  but  adds  that  they  are  more  incorrect.  Warton  had  ideas 
contrary  to  those  of  the  classical  poets  and  believed  in  giving  a • 
clear,  vivid  picture  and  in  referring  to  objects  by  their  real 
names , 

An  essential  quality  of  good  poetry  is  the  adapting  of  sound 
to  the  sense.  Milton  and  Spenser,  as  well  as  the  poets  that  felt 
their  influence,  achieved  this  virtue,  but  Pope,  different  as  he 
was,  did  not  maintain  this  quality.  Consequently  his  lines 
lacked  to  a great  degree,  the  harmony  of  their  verse.  A poet 
judges  the  harmony  of  his 'verse  by  trying  them  on  his  ear,  the 


( 


. i . ! .larofi^'Lqr;:  f ■:■'>■*  f'.  ’ 


>e  I.." 


jCx^ici^Lit 

eor:«i>*xc;'C^.  ‘ .’  ,’  /affc/ic  * ' ' 

4 

oicrfwr*  '■■’  J wo  1,  ..ot  ot  r.'.vri*ij  aJoc  " ; . /'.'.-i?  c ijb 

' . ‘vrf 

-tVi  -2'f>  :_,  ■ O.’C'J  i:V,-  ’**• 

o-'*-  ..  : :.:  >-:S  ' -'T  '.t«  ‘ ' , 

j 

■ Xr’*:  ’■  ^o ■' '. *i3R£)s^  ‘tv'bbfi .'Tf •'^  •!  eciUjRai)-  '••  'if t-  r" 

. lij'rolt  .■*  '*.*  M'v i.  Tx;y®->  sir;-:?':.  ■5'^r  e •':?  icn  .trrc  rtj.  v,i’'br  ' 

Uv  \*lr  ■ -'■^  v‘iS'^«'  *.v\f  ifiib  0^  Tn?'"  fcar'  6^( 

r<y  • *?  ■r?'‘r'»:9  att  C-'r;,'  r.-:  ^^;ji  .^o  i.*:.'  ^•.'  .Nt£'  ^cu--'K5>  b9tl( 

vyi  if.--.r  *r,>.  it Hf/f  ^•'' r i; ’'ilg.  ■•'1  £ '■  • v:^i’*rr  ?:'r ^qjLra  '•■.’ J"  ’to  aci 

ni . rtox.‘ j ’S  :^n‘-  , jibV' 


*■  V w £i9:f  '‘cxg  O-T-O";  9T:^  ’tc 


““•ftbl  ■iv^o-rs’-'’  . ‘ eiw'  \v 


>•  -i.  r.  * 


1- 


r’  * 


n Ir  nx  ^ vf*  ! ^e-‘. 


»i  ■ 


fXo  a:^+4;iP-.  &vv'f-J  c;‘  *xco‘ 


f.aiv*r  '£[•■-'■-  c:?  -f.i'f  ai  bnfi  ■ '::  , 


:'-j  : ' ■'  ' *'-;f:b.:  -?n^  «il 

^ r*'!’.  j-.-t'."'-  '.r^-.6q'  &a  £.kJ'‘ 

\ 

ni;  ' ■ ,■>;*».  c<!  Hi'S  , 

■ I'iif 


ocji  '^0  ■ ^'y  S‘  ' i '• 

, *16  Wf  f'  '’l2  ■^■;f a ;t  r w r i;  ' 


■*  - 4 '*^1. 


0^;*  .-? 


*e*'. >1  ,J.  xl'.ri* 


j . I C.  • -J.  • « 


• Iv  e:\rfv*  fc-jTgl/:  ''  , ,] 

. ' ^ ■ao.?  t 

/ri2r:  ,,  0-:,b9/  *:  o«  ' 

J -I  »4>*x- •'•'.*  .:xv  “^0  zad  e ’*■  • 


r*?-' 


^ . ' 


:>  if 

MMMHpi 


’ - ’ 

,1'  Xl  .. 


-11 


tendency  being  to  set  them  all  to  the  same  tune,  and  this  was 
Pope's  error.  He  has  in  general , though  not  always,  intermixed  the 
pauses,  but  he  has  not  varied  sufficiently  the  swell  and  movement 
of  his  lines.  He  profited  very  little  by  the  musical  versification 
that  had  been  given  to  him  as  an  example  by  Spenser,  who  was  more 
awake  to  the  beauty  of  nature  than  almost  any  other  writer.  In 
imitation  of  this  supreme  poet  his  stanzas  have  disagreeable  and 
disgusting  sounds;  and  one  would  almost  think  that  they  were  a 
contrast  or  burlesque  of  the  exquisite  stanzas  in  the  ”Pairy 
^ueen.”  Warton  cites  the  ”Rambler”  as  having  clearly  demonstrated 
that  Pope  did  fail  in  this  endeavor  to  adapt  sound  to  the  sense. 

For  many  years  the  one  accepted  form  of  verse  had  been  the 
heroic-couplet.  Dryden  used  it  most  successfully.  Rarely  has 
Pope  written  in  other  than  heroic  couplet,  and  when  he  made  other 
attempts  it  was  without  much  success.  This  form  was  still  being 
used  during  the  nineteenth  century,  yet  it  was  far  from  being  the 
most  favored,  and  was  replaced  rather  decisively  by  Keats  and 
other  romanticists  in  their  use  of  the  run-over  couplet. 

Since  the  models  of  the  Age  of  Pope  used  herioc-couplet 
almost  exclusively,  it  is  only  natural  that  other  authors  followed 
in  their  foot  steps.  Practically  all  poets  used  this  verse  until 
the  romantic  writers  began  to  copy  from  Spenser  and  Milton. 

It  is  true  that  Warton  thought  rhyme  was  more  proper  for 
shorter  pieces;  for  lyric  and  satiric  poems;  for  pieces  where 
closeness  of  expression  and  smartness  of  style  are  shown,  but  it 
is  unusual  at  this  time  for  anyone  to  sanction  the  use  of  blank 


' " 0,.','..  ('i  XJ/»  SS^f>  ' .'■  r 

r-‘  .i  ar.r-' . ‘ r oJk  H&i  . ■ 

i ’ ' .r.  •' >"0  ■ XJ.UTW3  V X^i/TB i '4  -fS'.'l  .'V  j or  {Kta'  ' ^ 

'jii)  bt  9 

, , . r’P  i c ri:.  r u 

^X'rv  -j-ai/X'’  ■,.  : . " ■'i^' Z^:-  ■:  *!;  0 '^vX‘”0'^  u ' 


oviv'  o#''  -r"c?>.  ain'  ^ . z:  •xstjz  *i-o  - ::.^  :i;«. 


. o »-  ’,' ';■  ■ f i-Z • ' X : / : 1 ’. J fa 0ti\  r « 

■i 


ii  C J - 


•rrn  f-  :X-  ; ^feiiu<  ^ i:  ...fOL’^wXd 
A ' i ■ " - -*) J ‘:<B  tt  px©  Z. , ori^Ufi  Z’zuJ  i:c  i a.si  f'T^- 

vr*'  Si-  fc.’:  '^^rv**‘^E£:.'I’‘  e.’C?  -wi+t.cjW  ".  tss-i;; 

o.’vf  uj-  f '.TOi,''  vf  ■'.■'T-pofrrtsi  r.-i  X ■■*•■:  Mi)  o 

Qd;i  irje  . 5 ' ?*  or-  9’:iq  «.K:f  'i 

u.'rf  ,v.  ^ '.'.;eoo<;a  J^ioa  .coi)^C-  • ' ■* 

“IV  ©rf  v'  XciT'irf  iLSi'iv*  'UpS*  Z -'  ,'Sw"-X^’  f'.T3‘t 

■■^.JU  fXii^  3£-;  nri?>  r;.t.'?  . ' i.9 OJJ R mm.  if:  .Sin. 

■ V , ■ '■ 

Cn’j  rfi  :*  . , z./Su9Q  sf-:--t9--SrzLl-i  jirrl'xi''  b ^ ^■ 

’^-C?  X ,£'</8'X  fi.“u  .bf^’zovhJ  ^ao'ir 

1 ':?si:oi;;‘ajer:on 


. ;■  i>  I.qSf!  Cv  *1 1 V C f LTX  a ^'1  ' -' j X A 9 If  ^ 

ir/j  ■■  r.-i' >•  ‘ boejL^  oqc^  I*..  -V-  -'  Sl'S-^c  ' 


, ^_r*vi  . vl5iX«  isrrrXo 
i . 


6#f^OXIoT  -i*-.-;?'  J-/'  ef  xXnc  si 

‘ ]:.:.>/?«■  .3  ■.*i.5v  - &®sir  ££&.,  ::ia  jt-  o*!  c* 

. V- r.'.  'n  7.s*.««a^  .ac*;!  'u-'od  .--i  rrjB?i©;r 

1 o'.ccv.t  e«r-  Jn'..;.*0i4%?  ■•Ow’x^Vf  + '•'  ai  -f’*- 

v7D>.  ; 'V :.  .-r  fHta'  oiT:X  -i;'^  ;3-o£iu  ' i-oda 


& ■, 


lo  t ^.■-.  •'zrr.B  “iff  3 !'•:  ' ■•:oXc 


•• 


0 3.'.'  ©.'•?  i'f<  XJ-Oilil*  Ov  9fi0  (7«fc 


iili  j'*.  rr 


-12- 


verse  in  any  kind  of  writing.  Thus  it  was  an  ext roard inary 
statement  for  Warton  to  say,  "For  subjects  of  a higher  order,  ^ 
where  emotion  and  enthusiasm  is  seen,  or  for  longer  poems  blank 
verse  is  certainly  preferable.” 

Warton  also  finds  fault  with  Pope  on  the  score  that  his 
poems  do  not  show  enough  of  nature  and  passion,  which  our  author 
believes  to  be  eternal,  while  ”wit  and  satire  are  only  transitory.” 
This  view  apparently  was  not  shared  by  Pope,  or  perhaps  he  readily 
forgot  it;  at  least  he  seldom  wrote  of  nature,  and  rarely  in 
passionate  strains.  Consequently,  we  may  expect  that  his  works 
will  not  live  as  long  or  remain  as  popular  as  the  works  of  the 
'•sublime  and  pathetic”  poets.  The  only  instance  of  the  pathetic 
that  Pope  has  given  us  is  to  be  found  in  "Bloisa  to  Abelard”  and 
"Elegy  tq_the  Memory  of  an  Unfortunate  Lady."  Warton  believes 
that  the  reputation  of  Pope  in  later  times  will  be  principally 
based  on”Windsor  Forest”,  "Rape  of  the  Lock,"  and  his  "Eloisa  to 
Abelard”  for  they  are  endowed  with  the  more  lasting  qualities. 

^ Pope,  although  he  was  the  great  poet  of  reason,  and  the 
first  of  ethical  authors  in  verse,  held  to  describing  modern  man- 
ners; and  those  manners  because  they  were  familiar,  artificial, 
and  polished,  were  in  their  very  nature  unfit  for  the  high  and 
lofty  plane  in  which  Milton  and  Spenser  wrote.  He  did  not'  allow 
himself  to  be  carried  away  by  the  subject, and  what  poetical  en- 
thusiasm he  really  possessed  was  stifled  and  withheld.  Granting 
that  Pope  was  one  of  the  most  correct  and  exact  of  poets,  he  still 


'.’iteL'S  'i*?srrp 


n 


* L -iu:  . . , ■:  ■;•.•■  '.  : 

• • 0.:;.  'Xol"  ,';;5::.  rj-  't-j'.:  .?;;  • .9^xjjd 

■'  . ■ , 1 'Uj'.tVae  :’  ■ 

^ . •:  X':fr*5:>xC‘T>;  • di  »e*r*T- 

■;  Cl*'-,  ■ iiwir  t ocija 


. Ijl'.,  il'u  :;o  xif'  C'';.^.'5't  'tc  rvu-j'^.-> 


. ; . X j arfj^w'  -'in  S'l.-:*::*  Xai"  < !*'  ■‘•'•■9 

vX  f frj  sxsv,*  \X,-'-  '>'^sa:rA  7.-'^  oi/'T, 

■ ■*  . *MX‘  . - ' . ' 

fT'  \;Xt‘':t''2  .■TofcX^K  oxf  J’Gjbc'X  .‘  ■ ; •^  ‘ 

aX'Tor  r-X.'t  i .'div  :^  v£-ar  , r r'l,-:;  . '■' ■;■-  •■  . N‘t  «jr:v  iaeu<j^ 


^ o -‘r*  “I : r un 


~X:-:To/'‘  j.’ X rrl-arsi  -r-:  'i-ioX  a°  eviC  SJlw 


'••_  L \'S  Xq  aaruSv 


X£f c e<.  uci  S'  0 i 0 '-i -I  ^nc/^  &£r:  X •* 


>*:/:  '*?'•!££;  oJ  aX  s*-'  px  rt^ri  9<in^’  , 

GevfllXo -’■  '•■'-  ■I . *nr:-I  : ?c  v-rcrroiT  o;f?  * 'aeX??* 

'X f>-  jlisy  ■'.■  X '.  :.' i. t '.-rf;S 

. Oc  BSioia"  x.'i  b:-*  ",  oo^I  sx..*-  ^o  jaf»;i3fl  , •'-•i:/':  loaXxrTi'  ''■  .c ' 

. :'>Jt^  iliii/f  T>r/e  eTJ?  x-eriJ  'ic^  ’ 

fnX  rvf«»'  , '•■•  uSC-'-X  ''•Xt'  sus'r  od  d"i-Oii*  S‘-  , '"T'^^'T  »•■ 


, >ist!Liv:M-  , c-  .1;  rixar.*!’:  f^Tsw  ti.::r/y.ood:-  [encf 

.'5:r-  'f  Jil'ij;;  ;:-xjLX”r^  --/i'  v fisri'cS  r'*!  ban 


wo  • ,iT  ' 1:  . X' ‘x;''''.i'Tn'q'S  f •£!  ' uOiriw  .ti  a'Tfil'T  'C'"*  ' 

?'■ 

-,r<'  $ndvt  ^:t3<  ■ ‘Xor  ^ f'si’X'S/J o c Cw  T..  - ’ 

. 'j.:.'.  i ''.^'ix  .*  h:ta  i-  'a:--  'BClj' ^rf  irari  ^ 

' i , ■ -■  Jcx'-jca  io^TL'xori  iniT-  od^  I''*  ■•re  afi-*,'  o-xo*^  :;t",rx 


-13- 


lacked  in  ‘brilliancy,  since  he  seldom  succeeded  in  transporting 
his  reader,  and  our  minds  are  not  affected  "by  his  lines  with  the 
strong,  fine  emotions  we  experience  when  following  the  thoughts  of 
Milton  and  Homer. 

In  judging- Pope’s  works  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  his  were 
"by  far  the  "best  and  the  most  copied  of  any  during  his  time.  In 
criticizing  poetry,  he  gave  his  own  personal  opinions,  in  which  he 
rarely  took  into  consideration  the  environment  and,  the  conditions 
under  which  the  work  was  produced.  But  Joseph  Warton  set  forth 
a new  idea  concerning  criticism  in  his  "Essay  on  Pope"  similar  to 
the  one  Thomas  Warton  conveys  in  his  "O'bservations  on  the  ’Pairy 
i^ueen*  ",  and  Richard  Hurd  in  his  "Letters  of  Romance  and  Chivalry." 
Warton  claimed  that  it  was  only  giving  an  author  due  consideration 
to  judge  his  works  in  relation  to  his  purpose  and  his  time.  If  it 
had  ‘been  the  aim  of  the  poet  to  instruct  and  to  teach  a moral, 
that  work  would  at  once  differ  from  a poem  that  was  merely  to  en- 
tertain and  amuse.  The  country  from  which  he  came  should  not  fail 
to  "be  taken  into  account.  For  instance,  how  a'bsurd  it  was  for 
Spenser  to  introduce  wolves  into  England.  Culture  differs  greatly 
in  distinct  localities  and  would  undou'btedly  influence  the  writer. 
Not  only  the  country,  "but  the  age  in  which  he  lived  plays  a dom- 
inant part  in  the  style  and  manner  of  a poet’s  writing.  The  poetry 
written  in  the  classical  period  differs  in  many  respects  from  that 
produced  in  the  age  of  romanticism,  and  the  differences  are  largely 
due  to  the  opposite  standards  of  the  age. 

Warton  concludes,  that  after  criticism  has  "been  extensive 
ll&V0 

and  the  rules  of  writin^oeen  established,  there  has  never  appeared 


- fr  ' ■ ^ ; ■•''  •'  ■ :'^r  fj'.-.'cusX’ 

i{*  ly  : ^jL-ri  %v  ijy.'CL'I*.  ' ; o'ijs 

'^0  .!■  ?■'.:/  ,l£o1  .ip  .'v  »o:t»i'i6<;[xs  i.w  t • ■*■' • 

- . i.T.  . " ’ ''iM 

?'C£*i«r-  u Lrf  ^ -' Tfl  O'!;,'  ^w  .’.‘r-rc  ■ ' ' * 

. '■  ' si-’f  v'':.'?  lo'  : cs  '*  ' il^  ■ ‘i;.  ‘ -f- ' 

.>:•'  ■ f':oi!.'  •?  'tj:  ■ , rt.  ■ 9 . no  vzoVi  nw^  #r/  , It -3 

^roi j’ i^rroo  «rf-  ,jbc'ii  tIv/t!?  f'^lai.^c  o n.^  .'  jTwu*;  ij 

:t£>a  :v  f{fj  oQC  - <i  . ryeoi/ftc’s:''.  *’•  t 

li  Ts.r:  .’.'S  H9  - i .'•BiDiii'xo  rrfirrteorrco  "-on  ft 

f 

Of:->  lu  5 ■ oi^*tvT’^  ^v<fO'*  jtt*:  9s:e',:.-o  orto  ^ .5-  ||)p 

-V, c '-'V L":  '..re  !5ori£noS  ia'isi*';fdvl’’  sli^  nJ.  &'TUii  ' 'rr.rfoiH  .,  " . ’xiO'ji/p  " 

' {’'■.*?>  t ■'  ixB  '=%*■!  i'v. I ^ \X-  ’^  • ‘■r  i'.i.  d“-vri^  ,fc?©  >:?.' Ii>’ rrOwt-T 

f.:  ',  . .li.;}’  eAi’'  i;:f  ' ©eo«i*tL'Cj'  <3^r*  iTc. J:^.:  Jit  .ii  -iCtvv-  ■ ..  'X'i,  w* 

, Tiitoir  B c.*  t'l.a  .+ii.rxi;ini  cJ  - oq  e.ai  'ic  ix-i.'  '’'•''i'  'yi^- 

- le  OiJ  Sj&W  J’>.  J r-'!^  _ ^ i>  V.M  OOilO  f bi? 

X.st  .‘oa  or.jes  «jr;  r.otl  ytc^^ac•o  .'-oLccia  feat.'’  gj 

^Tr.  -i;:n  VC  : 1.  to**-  . - nctfi  sr'  ..  J 

V •;,?■  rx«f.:  .EjfxsJstS  o.’J.''!  svii'Imv  jrrbctv^sri.  c*  tr'ctov^u 

. ;. ; : f iivczfn'.Ctai-  • ftc'-fTtr  £>  Ci’-ciV,’  soii  I £ficoX  '-JI-  »ti 

£rv2X  e.'  ti  ©'\£J  t-  5>''J  yrn">  J-c" 

: , /-  . ‘ttJiVff  .»  +«  oi3f  T.  ••:  ' •■•  aXt^^a  s.  ri  l ?■-•  t* 

Ji!:..’  r.vt':  t**  t,,ii  '■  vltr.M:':  -j  -.v-ri  ti 

:‘.  vr.*j  C'JX  rib  31(0  bt/  , - - --xr  t ‘Jo  ' •• 

'.t  r:£'.c.^Ji>’' 'v  r.  !>i  ,''’ ’Jo  : qo  - .i.?  i Qpb 

€.v  7:0  •‘lej^d’  *■<;.  i ■■•■'f.to  t?#4V>  tri. ' , ''.r.o.-.. 


f; 'nn  . 

’Or(T4l  ana  ©••■■■•..J  , ‘ is  iXv'B-i^'"!  .tooa  .;,  ■' £Tf  lo 


> »• 


-14- 


any  very  excellent  work.  This  remarkable  fact  might  be  accounted 
for  in  several  different  ways.  Either  the  natural  powers  are  con- 
fined by  caution,  which  arises  from  a rigid  regard  to  the  dictates 
of  art;  or  reason  has  destroyed  sentiment  and  caused  our  poets  to 
write  from  the  head  rather  than  from  the  heart;  or  succeeding  writ- 
ers in  striving  to  surpass  the  models  became  forced  and  affected 
in  their  diction  and  thoughts, 

AlthoUtgh  Warton  cannot  definitely  account  for  this  state- 
ment, he  has  observed  that  it  has  been  true  in  the  past  and  cites 
examples  - in  the  case  in  Greece,  in  Rome,  and  in  France , after 
Aristotle,  Horace,  and  Boileau,  had  written  their  "Arts  of  Poetry." 
In  England  the  rules  of  the  drama  were  perhaps  never  more  complete- 
ly understood  than  in  the  middle  of  the  Eighteenth  Century.  Yet 
what  uninteresting, though  faultless , tragedies  have  been  seen.  The 
works  produced  by  the  three  supreme  poets  was  at  a time  when  there 
was  no  strict  conformation  to  standards. 

How  different  is  this  belief  from  the  Ideas  held  by  Pope 
and  other  classical  writers.  They  believed  that  a work  was  only 
excellent  when  it  adhered  to  certain  guiding  principles  and  strict- 
ly conformed  to  the  rules.  When  a poet  did  deviate  from  the 
standards  of  the  time  he  was  severely  criticized  and  his  work  had 
little  value.  Pope  advised  that  the  short  cut  for  a new  poet  was 
to  consult  the  critics,  who  had  already  drawn  up  their  principles. 

Thus  in  looking  at  each  of  Pope’s  works  it  is  quite  evident‘s 
that  those  which  are  satiric,  didactic,  and  moral,  outnumber  those 


,frr  : ' 

. -*  - i 


'T  f ^ 


r . 


■ ■'  - ibbiiL^  a -.  .j  ; o:' 

r;^  '■j.;^^  'f^-'r  . , ■ '.  ' '.:  '/•  ^rrirrrJ 

, 3 Oj  .i.,  .^.)  ■ ..  . ' .'■  '"T^r  Oi 

w r* ~r  :;vii’*J'  .’;  ':i'  ’ ,>.' 

''~t ).  's- ■••  ■ ■_  . ^ i; x>  *0  "vf’:* 


w ■•  cM  .Ifill—  -fAPr 

■C-,  ••  ^0.'  . " ■ . 

,„ /cf'-:  - n.-'’  .- '\  • ' :?  * ' ''  ' 'i- 

-.<  **  t •to.'fj  I'V'-  * t5s  s ;'.  . . .'■.' 


h-7.'^  uu’v  5 


i.^ 


■'V  ' JU- 


it.  ^ 


■ <r*.'!CBr 


-15- 


with  the  more  natural  and  pathetic  emotions.  Because  of  this, 
they  are  not  of  the  most  excellent  poetry  . Nevertheless,  there 
is  much  to  he  said  for  his  characteristics  of  good  sense  and  judg- 
ment which  undoubtedly  were  his  best.  His  traits  of  fancy  and 
imagination,  though  not  entirely  lacking  as  we  have  observed  in 
"Eloisa  to  Abelard”  and  "Rape  of  the  Lock",  were  indeed  not  his 
outstanding  personalities.  In  practicing  the  leads  of  French 
models  and  especially  that  of  Boileau,  of  whom  he  was  a most 
earnest  student,  he  became  more  than  ever,  a firm  adherent  to 
strict  rules.  As  a result  his  pieces  were  polished  with  utmost 
care,  while  he  himself  came  to  be  known  as  one  of  the  most  exact 
and  correct  poets  that  ever  wrote. 

Joseph  War ton  was  a learned  scholar  in  his  day,  and  in  his 
"Essay  on  Pope"  we  see  an  exhibition  of  his  knowledge  and  his 
appreciation  of  poetry.  To  us  many  of  his  passages  seem  trite, 
but  to  the  reader  of  his  day  they  would  appear  original  and  sugg- 
estive. Much  which  seems  to  us  familiar  and  obvious  might  not 
have  been  so  evident  when  the  essay  was  written. 

This  young  author  was  the  first  to  attempt  putting  Pope 
in  his  proper  place,  and  since  it  was  so  long  ago  and  the  romantic 
tendencies  are  so  firmly  established,  we  are  liable  to  forget  how 
much  we  really  owe  him. 

His  first  volume  was  published  in  1756,  but  was  so  in  op- 
position to  the  opinions  of  the  time,  that  it  was  received  with 
universal  disfavor.  It  was  not  until  twenty— six  years  later. 


^ in 


X ’ .T 


K -s’ 


I j,‘  i.  (^oa^ 

• • 

1 *:c  sfiiKs^  ’../riJiC* 

JliiroJ  , 

' :!-:U'itS5T  u. 


rv*  % 
**-  • 

* J 

v<  ' K 


.'ir; 


•»*  . • T * C •, 


■C  ; > i:J; 


..'7  ■' 


*r>i3 


<a^ 


.1’:.  f--.  , 


W Iv 


I 


t 


t 


-16- 


in  1782,  that  the  second  volume  of  his  most  noteworthy  work 
appeared.  It  was  dedicated  to  Young,  who  held  in  common  with 
Warton,  many  of  the  romantic  tendencies. 

Warton*8  first  volume,  although  it  was  liberally  received, 
was  quite  generally  disputed  by  the  literary  men  of  his  time. 
ITevertheless , his  volumes  on  Pope  have  been  commended  for  being 
judicious  in  their  remarks,  which  were  delivered  with  an  air  of 
candor  and  liberality.  The  “Critical  Review”^  recommends  the 
first  of  the  works  “to  the  public  notice  with  pleasure”  because 
“it  breathes  the  spirit  of  true  criticism,  unbiased  by  sordid 
prejudice  or  partiality.”  Warton  was  received  somewhat  as  a sen- 
sation because  he  dared  to  attack  so  great  a reputation  that 
of  Pope.  Those  who  criticize  his  first  volume  speak  guardedly 
concerning  it.  They  think  that  Warton  was  too  severe  in  many  in- 
stances in  his  criticisms  of  some  of  Pope*s  most  beautiful  lines, 
while  he  is  too  profuse  in  his  praise  of  others.  He  is  not  jus- 
tified in  some  of  the  criticisms  which  he  makes  of  the  “Pastorals.” 
In  contrast  to  the  opinion  of  Warton,  they  think  the  sound  of  some 
lines  of  Pope  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  sense,  notwithstanding 
the  demonstration  of  the  “Rambler"  which  was  so  convinci-ng  to  our 
author.  They  contend  that  Warton *s  assertion,  that  the  sciences 
cannot  exist  in  a republic,  favors  too  much  of  the  “wild  spirit 
of  a democratic  enthusiasm,  which  some  people  have  imbibed  from 
the  writings  of  the  Greeks.”  This  spirit,  although  at  first  no 
more  than  a mere  affectation  of  singularity  and  superior  knowledge, 

1 “Critical  Review"  1756:— Page  226;  Volume  l;  London,  1756; 


-17- 


may  gradually  grow  into  principle  and  habit,  and  may  daily  gain 
strength  until  ultimately  it  would  betray  the  possessor  into  all 
the  absurdities  of  an  ’’overheated  imagination.”^  They  received 
it,  however,  because  it  contains  a great  number  of  curious  and 
entertaining  anecdotes  of  literature,  and  because  it  is  ’’fraught 
^vith  a world  of  erudition,  almost  too  ostentatiously  displayed.”^ 
The  ’’Critical  Review”  pronounced  the  essay^,  ”a  work  of  taste  and 
learning,  animated  with  many  strokes  of  manly  criticism,  replete 
with  knowledge,  and  diversified  with  a number  of  amusing  incidents 
and  observations.”  One  scholarly  and  very  capable  critic  remarks 
that  the  ’’Essay  on  the  Genius  and  Writings  of  Pope”  is  on  the 
whole  ”a  most  entertaining  and  useful  miscellany  of  literary  know- 
ledge and  candid  criticism,  containing  censure  without  acrimony, 
and  praise  without  flattery,  and  abounding  with  incidents  little 
known  concerning  celebrated  writers,  with  remarks  upon  their 
characters  and  works,”  ^ 

that 

Thus  it  seemed  throughout  the  age, ^ they  admired  Warton’s 
audacity,  his  candor,  and  style;  but  they  clearly  hesitated  to 

agree  with  his  statements,  and  generally  opposed  his  views  con- 

s 

earning  the  stability  of  Pope’s  poetry.  Dr.  Johnson  seemed  some- 
what indifferent  to  the  essay;  yet  he  immediately  took  issue  with 
Boswell  when  the  latter  remarked  that  Warton  had  made  the  most  of 
his  cause,  for  Johnson  believed  the  cause  to  be  of  Warton’s  own 
making.  He  even  expected  that  after  the  first  volume  Warton  would 
not  continue,  since  he  had  not  been  able  to  convert  the  world  to 

1 ”Critical  Review”--! 756 ; Page  266;  Vol’ome  I;  London, 1756. 

2 ’’Memoirs  of  Joseph  Warton”— Page  33,  by  Wooll , John ;London, 1806 . 


1 


-18- 


his  ideas  of  Pope.^  This  helief  was  erroneous  because  in  1782 

the  second  volume  appeared.  In  fact,  it  had  long  been  expected 

and  even  called  for  by  the  public;  and  when  it  came  afforded  much 

2 

entertainment  and  instruction. 

One  writer,  Ruffhead,  even  openly  attempted  to  overthrow 
\arton’s  stand,  when  a few  years  following  the  publication  of  the 
volume,  he  wrote  of  Pope  under  the  patronage  of  Warburton.  His 
purpose  clearly  was  to  defeat  Warton’s  statements  and  to  correct, 
as  he  said,  Warton*s  misrepresentations.  Ruffhead  places  the 
purpose  of  our  author  as  a design  to  diminish  the  lustre  of  Pope’s 
reputation,  to  degrade  him  from  his  rank  as  a great  poet,  to  deny 
him  any  degree  of  invention,  and  to  set  him  lower  in  the  eyes  and 
estimation  of  his  admiring  readers.  But,  Ruffhead,  though  he 
labored  hard,  could  not  depreciate  the  veracity  and  sincerity  of 
Warton,  nor  could  he  render  the  critical  decisions  disputable.^ 
Webbe  in  a letter  to  Warton  agrees  that  Ruffhead  had  added  noth- 
ing new  in  his  work,  but  had  rather  lowered  his  own  reputation, 
and  had  almost  made  himself  out  to  be  a fool. 

Prom  the  volumes  themselves  it  is  apparent  that  Warton  was 
so  far  from  engaging  in  so  ungenerous,  so  fruitless,  and  impotent 
an  attempt  to  lower  Pope’s  reputation,  that  he  has  used  the  most 
scrupulous  caution  in  speaking  on  so  delicate  a subject.  And  thus 
AThile  Warton  gives  due  credit  to  the  classical  school  of  writers 
and  duly  praises  Pope  for  his  satire  and  fancy,  he  still  remains 
firm  and  unshaken  in  his  general  contention  that  the  highest  art 

1 'Boswell’s  Life  of  Johnson;'  Volume  Il;Hill,  Georgs;  Oxford, 1887 

2 "Critical  Review"  1782;  London,  1872; 

3 "Memoirs  of  Joseph  Warton" , --Pages  35  and  36;  by  Wooll.  John; 

T.orfdnn  1 AHA  • 


t '■  rjf..  uf;  '/  I'  •' 
fiS’ li,.' . *■  srj  1 .•fs."'*v 


•-.•»  ’V** 


■vo’iv'^ -t'.'vo  Cv  .' ■?  ' 'oX.:*.-?©  :'i  t , 

»i-  1'  : i*JS  ij  ! "^r.  i’  -ivO  j!Xo^  m ij:i.t\  yv-i  m 

Hi  , -[  ' i'Ui  I'W':  'y  oJ.t  egro^  . ..  ^ 

- 

• “ 'lit-  . i 'i: » a^■^ru*:.!^V:  *d?*^s£)  Gj  Sfia 

o.<i  r-’^iO;  -.r'- *r :;  ;t  '■'f 

, ' f*’r.'3r.C  pxl^  iw*  . , .;i  * ' • c,6  •scj:'  . 


--i  t'-f: : t i.~  ^ /-jtii fcfp 

?"rC  ^ * 

'•  iJ  -3  ' 


■<  - 1», !,  n + ■' 


a •«!  S3  2D5«lt  £('i  inc'il  s^id  o;u'’?:i,3L  .. 


’ 3'T  /j  .i.  j^', 


’■■■a,’  ti.-.- >Tir4»»  ai'i 
LdJ'  iS^^jDd:i»*eii  iTi ' . 

ufirqt  tinci oii ''  '"so'l'j;-.  -jr.*  • .■  /;  ;j, 

iw^s>i2?'  r/c.^T 


r 


, i-  (- -i^  ' • 

,;•■'•  .'-.‘a;.,  'I’  ITT','  S’’''  •■  TSdim  5/j/i  •**  , . r'j;  *'fr  . -ri: 

• . '■.'Ol  f'r  sd  “••-'.■’31  tv  .tr-"-' 

* • ' ' • 

-I'v  r;o.‘ - i:(v  ■-•/■>  :>t  5'i  eev  “ '‘'••l'  i.^Xcv  :;  d^  ii 

.i-j  - ! .- ^ , .‘»X,»  \ -.!:'^  '^iJJ  Ofi  '-r  n’  ;;,-v  I-OV*  04 

- - "-.t  , •’'OiJjs T^si<|o^-  -•'~r  I : ^ .* 

. *' . . d' ■ 0 fi  tr*Lj::i  r^i^)  OK  fTO  jjfr  -'1 0 rri  -it:  v. 


jL--  ^ :r^  ' ^ ^.00[ 

' ' *^*  r 

prlr-^>yi  c 

* • • it  . •-  * ’X  ••  ' * . 


V r , 


-19 


of  poetry  could  be  brought  about  only  by  the  love  and  sympathy 
which  the  poet  has  with  nature. 


"I 


MO/  Of'-*  ■ »L'o.'-  'ii^L/orrcf  :--r 

.'  •''  jr  ! BC.'f  JsO" 


■'Hr  ^ ’ 

i 


^ f 


.n 


9 


~d‘ 


4 


-20- 


CHAPTER  II. 

Owen  Ruffhead’s  "Life  of  Pope." 

With  the  passing  of  the  half-century  mark  came  the  grad- 
ual decline  in  Pope’s  popularity.  A few  of  his  staunch  friends, 
hovrever,  strove  to  stem  this  outgoing  tide.  Ruffhead  in  all  en- 
thusiasm and  sincerity  endeavored  to  defend  him  from  the  attacks 
which  Warton  made  upon  him  in  the  "Essay."  The  "Life  of  Pope" 
in  which  Ruffhead  discusses  at  great  length  the  criticisms  made  hy 
Warton,  appeared  in  1769. 

In  this  work  he  explains  that  the  purpose  of  his  history 
is  to  relate  without  "bias  the  incidents  of  the  poet’s  life.  He 
follows  Pope’s  life  history,  interweaving  it  with  his  writings, 
and  does  not  omit  any  just  commendations  that  occassionally  appear. 
Ruffhead  boasts  that  from  the  criticisms  of  other  authors  he  will 
form  a general  and  reliable  standard  whereby. the  "nature,  force, 
and  extent  of  Pope.’s  genius"  may  be  measured.  He,  however,  failed 
to  fulfill  this  boast,  and  his  work  has  never  been  considered  a 
standard  one. 

To  gain  a clear  conception  of  the  genius  of  Pope,  Ruffhead 
engaged  himself  in  the  study  of  his  biography.  Eor,  as  he  said, 
the  life  of  a personality  is  depicted  within  the  vn^itings  of  a 


1,' 


► 


\ 

\ t 


i 


I 


t 


. 0 

-0 

. : ' RHr  -• 


U-l  ^0  6 


1.  . >.  # ^ -5 


■ Lu-'";  r».'l 

S"  ::. 


'4  -*-* 


i^SVi.df^croC’  'j'l'TC  i 'T.:  :>'f  . .*'  C^:/ 


r ,!»  - . ./Cf C 9 T’ “ A XJ^K  9rf..'  a ) ■.? 

'ii)i  ■'"  ^ itx  ' ■"  . 

'•  0 : j;  . ^-*;  + ,vtiog>j'.  . 1 £.;f  :r.5.*?  i.' ; ,w-  + . ,i  '&w 

• J 

• ‘-t’  "Ct*  ' i «' * ^ r "•  idb  IS  vi'-  > ' . .;s;.ia'7tft 

''c'fv'’!  “ ■¥-*'■  ■•.I*  ertX  *’ . ■ ;"R~  <?•'£■  :i  e.l  ^ 'j--  '.'-ir-'-r;  ' 

T 9:' J*  •>  ' y£-  :u;-'  /ioLiw  f«i 


*▼ 


:J3X  ■'  • 


:.r.v.M  Id  ; v*v<^  e'*  '/x^- 


. "f  9:  ' 1-  -.i'l'- '. .;  '"  -"• 

V';  >■ 

, ' .71'^  ^':.'  . s'.\r  ff-  3 ‘^ir s' os-^.  f"  , tt  ^y' i : 

■ W‘  . 

.[rt'uici  .:  ’'  >t-.  Ccf  -i;;>x?i>fcrf'j'.  : d - s ^Lmo  i&i 

^ ■ ,•'■;■  ’ y 7:  K’j't  :I:J.’'r''  -:‘ : 


^ :-?i 


' . o ’ i>£v^ 


■ ■ rj 


, \;VX:')air  =)  fVv  U»:  t/'  .>  v.:  *.19^  ■/' 


It  ' eXTiro’ 
;9hi45rr 


. ib?T:j  icx'io  ^cT  *3U/X..;'3  ’ 


<fc  4 


tm^Tjs 


i 19^11  luii  J.10W  4Z.i  O . , ' 3C';d  UC'i'^ 


'\  -I-  -^r  > 


'•  'i  **;  ;;oi t.i[c ci'i'.'o  XiicT^  m itIj?-;,  o'" 

, ' ,v  '7/-'-  . tr  3nli  r,}'.  *.  t 


./ 


?<  f 


f.  ■ 


,'o‘rxfe'i  A In  0J.lI 


-21- 


man,  BO  that  it  is  indeed  difficult  to  discriminate  hetween  the 

history  of  Pope,  the  man,  and  Pope,  the  author.  It  is  a generally 

conceded  principle  that  the  personality  of  a good  writer  permeates 
his  works.  Thus  it  is  that  Ruffhead  intended  to  substantiate 
his  ideas  of  the  greatness  of  Pope,  and  thus  it  was  that  he  in- 
tended to  refute  the  derogatory  treatise,  which  had  been  put  forth 

by  War ton. 

One  of  the  chief  objections  which  Warton  had  found  to 
Pope’s  works  was  that  he  imitated  and  copied  other  authors.  But 
Ruffhead  believed  that  Warton  was  biased  in  his  opinions,  and 
that  it  was  Warton 's  purpose  to  prejudice  Pope’s  reputation.  Ruff- 
head resented  this  attitude,  and  took  it  upon  himself  to  labor 
arduously  to  refute  the  statements  of  Warton. 

Ruffhead  declared  that  Pope's  practice  of  imitating  re- 
sulted from  his  modesty  rather  than  his  vanity.  Pope  perceived 
how  defective  his  own  productions  were, and  endeavored  to  mend  his 
composition.  Thus  he  came  to  be  a close  follower  of  the  masters, 
and  it  was  his  habit  to  copy  after  the  "capital  strokes  of  both 
the  ancients  and  the  moderns.” 

Warton  maintained  there  was  nothing  new  in  the  "Pastorals." 
Ruffhead  asserted  it  was  no  more  than  Pope  had  premised,  when  he 
said  with  all  modesty  and  sincerity  in  his  own  justification  of 
imitation,  "But  after  all,  if  there  is  anything  of  merit  in  the 
’Pastorals’,  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  some  good  old  authors, 
whose  works  as  I had  leisure  to  study,  so  I hope  I have  not  want- 
ed care  to  imitate." 


f } 


■ m 


5v« 


1 


2 ■ ’ • */.•V•‘^':^^  'wi'i'i  ^1  *L  c«  , ',r.r, 

! X :•  t ,tr  .'£^.  ;V.  • • . : ■ , -.in  r.  '*  , '■-  lo  v*' : ' L.i 

i'  .•  ■ '1C  I-Lt”  rcoji  Ji  j ^,.  ‘ ’ d.CQ ’’0 

.- 1 m’::  I i‘*  I ‘ V ^ ”.v  r.  - :riT  . ‘•’U.n:  ■’;i.-\ 

5,-f  .■  - le^.'  ir  ■T3U'.V-  , u-1  ’ i::rri.'»:i'^^  *^c'  :j&6  • I'ri 

..';.'4  rrOOtf  '‘>a'  .-jI  '*  9£f-  .^t 


t bL‘.i  rT-..^'r«ir  ;r' IrS  q.t:  i ^ . 3 tair.'r  e *io  ^ ic- 

, • :i‘i--'  r-Jfiij  t^ir<'-  .'■'  ' *Wt  -i*:?,’'  «’  - r 

, 3 '»'>i  t*''r ■ *‘l  1 ’:  >o-t:r J.;f  .1  ■•  i’-? 

. 1 fisJnfiBi  'I .• : ?j*u' (•.ri^'r  0^  9soj*xl'.x  .*  * .*1  ii 

'.)■■.•£.  :;•"  *):■-  .t'J'li'  'I  ’■  f»:r  , + 

c'^i’  £ 


• v\*-  or{:t  9iAii:is'X  ^Xaw;;ft«Ji' 

- -■  r*. 

..  i 


■?.  :;. TO. -'iT  E*9C|e.  ‘‘  /.J  i>'*Tv:  J ■ S'.  ^ 

- 


.i!i-r.  »I.H  'i-s+S.tr;'i  v-:;f ’io 6^- * -'oi 


* r> 


.or  ed  I ^ 


:\7  ift.o  o':  ^5  iroif 


'V-.H  ' Xol  t'ftofd  e.r  C>  t ' » ti  ' 


• ' • . 1 i -‘S^ieo'^  < r.  t " C."  - -. 

* * . ;5'^ 

Sv'i  • 5'*-K?r  ;•  S bnr 
- ■■  - ■:; : -I?:-'-  a*' 

•-'■'•  ,r  ' ^ 

^ ■ ' '''OT'st  i./^.iS‘  .■'TO-  ■i  >'  i y '■>*.* v'*i0a o«3  his^  ',i'5I 

'.'5  ■ ovii  'S'  y k •,*vi-i»a  ' ' . '.&  '■'  3 •^'^*  IX* 

■i  fl-u:.  '..:•  o.  ,XI.-  . vi/€"  , i ' : * :• 

_•  ■-,*'  •.  i'  bO05  S.t  *y<(i'xfS'JS  •i'i  oi  ' ui  *1  »'  i {!“*;  0 ‘ * 

,,  • 1 c ' *■  I o , ) ft^S-  T tt«  O'/ic."  , 

« . ' t:ai  * 


• I o 


-22- 


It  was  the  opinion  of  Ruffhead  that  although  Pope  did 
openly  imitate  the  ancient  v/riters  in  his  “Pastorals”,  yet  he 
did  so  with  the  result  of  ameliorating  their  works.  In  some  few 
instances,  however,  he  has  not  imitated,  hut  has  literally  trans- 
lated from  the  original.  It  was  his  delight  to  imitate  those 
stories  or  passages  which  particularly  pleased  him,  hut  he  did  it 
in  such  a way  as  to  make  them  peculiarly  his  own.  Not  only  did 
he  improve  the  passages  he  imitated  hut  gave  many  that  may  he 
justly  deemed  original. 

Ruffhead  found  fault  with  Warton  because  he  unjustly 
accused  Pope  of  lacking  in  the  qualities  of  invention  and  imagin- 
ation. He  censured  him  for  not  considering  more  carefully  the 
meaning  of  these  two  words  before  passing  criticism  on  Pope. 

Warton *E  statements  that  Pope  was  "an  excellent  improver,  if  no 
inventor"  and  "that  Pope  showed  more  imagination  in  his  ’Rape  of 
the  Lock’  than  in  all  his  other  works  taken  together",  were  most 
exasperating  to  our  author.  But,  although  he  criticized  Warton 
on  these  declarations , he  does  not  in  any  substantial  way  recon- 
struct the  poet’s  reputation. 

He  endeavored  to  belittle  Warton *s  methods  in  this  way, 
perhaps , purposing  to  defend  Pope.  He  ridiculed  Warton  for  fail- 
ing to  define  his  words  concisely,  and  seemed  unable  to  take  issue 
with  him  because  he  did  not  understand  their  meanings.  However, 
Ruffliead  was  hesitant  in  making  his  attack.  He  excused  himself 
on  the  plea,  that  although  defining  words  and  terms  was  dangerous 


t n 


>f,  --n  •io  y- 

- :* : X j*!:o>;^iull*i''  mii  #i  *’  I *?^co 

":  "'  . ' :c'.  > J Cc/nenr  ‘ ' •»  . 


i ^i^  o.  ':■/  .1.  ’ ‘rSMA'c/  '.  fr  .' -Cf/ox  ' I '^q  r ahJv  uot^-.  ' “ ^;ot# 

- : ''  , .’  'o':  , -•  ir.  '::■  ^-  ■■:;  :■•  " -.  • r.-ji.  i.l 

.'•.'■'t  v*T'^"  9V.*3  -'•i;^''  (;.•?.■*.'■;'].■■'  tt.'f  »<ii’  ‘rf, 

. : 'i  X-'f. 

vr.‘..  •''.  i?  ■ naujso&J  [iv  iw  ^ : >.  ■ ■ 

.'  ;*.:',i-*.:?v,^!  7 * . - ' ‘>'rr'»‘«  i>eruDDJ» 

3ii  »'•' ,-Xf  joi  i'?  *>urf  r.':  .': 

.*T  ‘ :r  . ‘ " r q o Jj't  •f,  a ‘id  3c 


o*f 


V 


in: 


V .,* 


t '. 


.ix:"  ^ c'io^  ♦* 

7.  .;‘;.T9*>i:  2.  X ’ crOw 

.7’  ni  asii.‘'..-Tc7 

■ X *>f»wri{a  ;; 

^0^  - 

fi"  liiX?  ‘’<X.>^.TLX'  r 

:tOX 

■w  .i.V'f?w  -^r 

i . :c- 

iri  :l>:  '-ji-o.: 

!W'  - 

•”  b'lXilr.  ti'i'r  ■ 

■>  *r  *r 

■>4.  -V 

;;:;  o’.^  /••  r f.xo 

j't.  ■ /-i"'’*  -.^7^  Ci  7'  w' 

''ii  --  •.  i.  7 af?  ■'■  ■'  'b 

, l .-'f  . 

i S •* ' . ' '■  c -9  *:'  • • r . { 0 

. -.  t.  X 

• , \.'  *i  V 

j i>*.  r*-; 

'iVv*9<‘  : ?r:t  xax/'i-li 

• '. ' • ci  uf^C.‘.d'or:  '^■*  ull 

It  <•:  ♦•:  ..c*r  . * -^rtxacwr-fq  , ri«/^-xtq 


ij  ,~ 


. ,.-t:  :..r»r  ’ brtrJ, 

t>t  oi'  , . > '•X' i : 

;.  •■*  Tf*.‘  brris  aMcw 


,,  :%'■  V I c)«o  c ' ? '.'.  - ^ ■ .'^  di:  i '•  1 , 

“tjtfv'*  M*  ft  ' ?>|j||fclid 0 fi'i  cf 

^ v.r:-;.:r>'.-  .•’:  + .,■  i t*;w  .'  ---r 

ir-r * • *■ 


-23- 


in  writing,  yet  one  who  criticized  and  disputed  an  established 
reputation,  should  and  ought  to  proceed,  only  after  designating 
the  meanings  of  the  terms  he  employed. 

Invention  and  imagination  themselves  are  very  closely 
allied,  but  are,  nevertheless,  some\7hat  different  in  form.  77riters 
often  find  it  difficult  to  discriminate  between  them.  Ruffliead 
thinks  that  Warton  confused  their  meanings  and  that  he  attributed 
the  power  of  creating  to  the  imagination,  when  it  rightfully  be- 
longed to  invention.  Thus  Ruffhead  disputed  barton’s  conception 
of  the  meaning  of  the  word  invention.  He  also  arduously  endeav- 
ored to  refute  the  stand  which  the  critic  took  on  Pope*s  claim 
to  originality  and  invention. 

In  discussing  the  "Essay  on  Man",  Warton  began  by  denying 
Pope  the  power  of  invention.  This  indeed  is  opposed  to  Ruffliead ’s 
conception.  The  ability  of  the  poet  to  improve  a borrowed  thought 
until  it  became  practically  original  was  rated  by  Ruffliead  as  the 
quality  of  invention.  He  believed  where  there  was  "a  just  draw- 
ing, an  artful  grouping,  and  a strong  expression,"  in  a well 
chosen  subject,  it  was  evidence  of  a strong  pretense  to  the  qual- 
ity of  invention.  Therefore,  Pope  should  be  attributed  with  the 
power  of  invention,  since  he  was  a just  claimant  to  these  qual- 
ities . 

There  was  in  his  works  so  much  concise  and  logical  reason- 
ing, and  so  much  of  poetic  foresight  that  he  seemed  quite  originsd  . 
His  images  too,  which  he  used  to  illustrate  passages,  were  unique 
and  striking.  The  air  of  novelty  does  indeed  permeate  every 
sentiment;  and  human  art  is  so  excellently  displayed  that  Pope 


,gft  ; -^r  . i 'le 


X>4< 


" ' Cw  I/O  hj.h  ; « . l . ’ 

. ' ..r  / ;.t;5  i:'-coS  o:<^  To  X "'r  mi 

- a»v£#ii^:  ri:)ii^rr  *'^'Txr. .".  I ' : ' -iwnl 

.■'•f  15  u-t  ’ .^i  1. 

, ed  iadJ  *■::  <1  Zx-^'.'r:  u . :ldi 

-■  (ji  •-'*  , IJ 


L-  i;  1 ; 0 D'J  <>Q  « ’ ■ ■' :;  ,>  -T  oV,'  *>  - i’/.' ; ^ 


.' '.  jj/i  ;* 


..Vi.:  { 


• V.  v£?-J  Qt!b^^a  O0la  or;  . roitru"?  ! >Iv.’' 


’ yi  rz  /rc^  ->11;-^^'  .5a^:e  7. 


I !c»  vf( 


v'  ' 


; : ttf  an  \*6/^  S' J t '; ',  t:S'j.';<iif>  itT 

'■>or,:  :rc  hI  ,f  ’ ’’I  'ai.cT'  .ao^^nciTv i ':o  :v.-c':  lav  ( 


• S-, 

i'Ca-jCC'i 

r b 

ovo’X-'Jffi 

X ?■■  1 v*^  tl 

9 

tie  ' : vll  '/C-.  .-.T 

'ja- 

■ 

X .o'a^jsa 

/ 17  X^'; : 

•-  . • !■ 
.!  ,.l* 

•xo  . •,•.-• 

; ^• 

.k‘  .^  t 

•i. 

#• 

.'  '.'©niX 

*?V3 

1 Joef  «•]  . '^'.. 

"•fin 

X^SSr 

/:  n ^ 

\ 

:e 

,-a-;:/:;i-b‘r  'rMzf 

« 

c'i  S'. 

.t'f 

■j’tiQ  ■*'  t' 

:)  0 

;■  ■ •5.:v':  , '■  l.iu-' 

’ * . -nc 

>'•*’7.  Jt  i;e-t  T;;l4u*C  £■/•  i 


r 


V.‘  li:- lO  i rs 


} 


'■  1 v<-„  z>'''zr, 


Air^vr;  o tcsvp^ 

. .ci:i 

V-  r:'t^e(' 


i . 


iv;.'  Locsc/a  cr’  iadi  .' > ‘t  ;V'i  t. 

fi 


'.'  jif  ,-^'rr  ‘A,.:'timA  A . -'  5t'Ou’  o^i  rfoi  .r  , ';t.j  ^ ! 

r<:fi:0£r.ar' i fx»oi;a'.i:  '.006  \,iX0l^X-'  'l^'-  'XiiS' 

:•- .V-*  »'0V/.  :'.ei5  v:r^.js/£n-ev:s 'tfv*  a«  ' ' ' n il 


'•!»  , 

il.'a  5. 


Pf|l>»ffc!» 

a V* 


-24- 


seems  rightfully  entitled  to  the  attribute  of  originality. 

Particularly  is  this  true  in  the  sylphs,  which,  according 
to  Ruffhead*s  assertion,  were  first  brought  into  poetical  machin- 
ery by  Pope.  He  gives  the  poet  the  first  honors  in  discovering 
the  relation  between  imaginary  things  of  the  air  and  "light  fan- 
tastic objects  he  intended"  to  ridicule.  And  because  he  distinct- 
ly believed  such  a power  to  be  a trait  of  invention,  he  is 
surprised  that  Warton  denied  him  that  quality. 

There  is  a decided  difference  in  the  opinions  of  Ruffhead 
and  Warton  regarding  the  description  of  Pope.  Warton  criticized 
the  descriptions  of  Pope  as  being  too  general  and  indistinct; 
but  even  if  this  be  true,  Ruffhead  argues,  it  does  not  lessen 
Pope *8  superiority  when  all  circumstances  are  considered.  Por 
when  Pope  describes  a scene  he  writes  as  he  finds  or  conceives; 
and  if  the  region  of  which  he  writes  is  barren  and  extensive, 
so  then  \vould  his  lines  contain  but  meager  and  indistinct  words 
of  description.  Purthermore,  he  maintains  that  descriptive 
poetry  is  but  a subordinate  in  the  rank  of  poetical  excellence; 
so  he  finds  it  unnecessary  to  defend  Pope's  inability  to  describe 
vividly. 

Warton  himself  said  that  the  office  of  description  was 
to  "brighten  and  adorn  good  sense."  To  employ  it  then  merely  as 
a brilliant  coloring  in  a poetic  setting  is  to  waste  an  agency 
which  can  be  made  to  represent  an3 illustrate  nature's  most 
wonderous  beauties.  Our  poet  himself  thought  that  mere  descrip- 
tive poetry  contained  nothing  substantial,  and  he  humorously 


yAXi^tfiooi  'tdotifV  orii  nl  t?it4*  nb  f «X  v'f^  OrcltiaS:'  

i-<i.t/i0JB3i  XuoiVooc  P^ni 

3flI'A»r-j08i^  irl  ctotSQti  ©a'^  ^9oq  9it<t  %tvia  t?l  .aijo^ 

*rJ3.tX*  ftrtB  tls  dK^*  .'ffcorr^^f  no.^d'i;  •’a^  ©:ft 

'%■  '** 

©rr  ©«/«o©jf  ftnA  ’ .oiX^oiMi /oc^  •^a6R*^i  i %f  ^Sb^ltSc  ^ 

bI  9if:  lo'  £>  acf  e JoVM  t^'rbi^^d 

i^iSt  Sid  feaittJi  'iaaJtaq'Xiia 

,1©  iartcJtfrX^o  cii^  ai  i?>  t>aJ!>ip85  ^ eipifT  .<S^ 

to  -^'  ■ ■ . . *'  V 

. »q0^  1o  nrAX4tx^aeJ!>  od&  s^ib’Kv'^ik  dfo^xfV  JNie 

■“  ,-  rt  -3 

ixa»4;9X  ibii'  s90^  :fi  ,3«i.-3!r3  8cf  oixitf  rtST©  ^y<f 


1 


jco?  .ft«?Te6l8itoo  ©TA  »s*i  ,»iai!uio*xJto  JU©  n^dw  trc 

-.v^-'’  ^ ■ ' ..  X-''  . " 

:ibviacfi©o  TO  sftr.il’orf  na^^i^nr  aK  ar»o«  » o?lo^  rfdxl*r 

o 

f ' * Ot  - *S* 

t^TisisoJ^xo  X'ruBi  ^:e■3:•xi^^f  iii  «»i^jTir  itd  do Jti'hr  Jo'^ibcl^ot  t>sfX  bttB 

^ ' ] J 


^ud  aJLBtdco  eiif  ^iOror  rraiii  oe 

‘ ^ aviteXTaoeB  <4i:is^Kia«r  iff  .noi^giT&fi^  '^'o  . 

I ;BO*3©XXi>cqjH>  /xoi,*ooq  Ri  ^eirXfcTOtfi/a  a e,i 


®d‘!to»o»  vrXXirfml  a'dio^  ftno'laB  ^aafioanrfy  i-x  iiArri^^o^'e^  . 

-■  f*  _,  .^t  .%jnbifiv 


fW 


(Sdr  fxrliqi'xosab  polJJo  ^d&  iBdb  6i«s  ‘*jfea©TLi 

* < , 

'P'8ipr'«X&T€>«j  aarTi  il  xpXqtna  ot  •.sanaa  Bopg  UTofer  hafi  rjc^rial?^*’ 

* ' ■ . ■<  ‘V  •■  ' 

'*■  _ r*’  pj'. 

iis  »:f9£rf  o*  a'i  gnl^dhea  oOvoq- © ffx  fifriToXpo  iftAiXXi'Xcf  © 

,’v  - a'dTyXaxt  aiar^ayXf  i Cn#'  5;t«^T9^W  aXaicr  ocf  xtat  .‘aixfw 

-olToaaX  oToitr  ^ocm  tj/0  auoTaJhfiow  ; 

t \XayoToicv£f  Bttjfi  , Xaltrtatfe<f«8  j^JUiier:  tvit 


t. 


iMwarvimnaBaqiwii 


>^ap>iw>g 


ar 


•V 


»mu.i>nB 


S 


-25- 


compared  these  efforts  to  the  absurdity  of  a "feast  of  sauces." 
And  as  an  effect  of  his  belief  we  find  in  "Windsor  Forest"  that 
he  has  observed  description  by  making  it  the  coverin,g  for  good 
sense.  Often  where  one  is  expecting  to  see  only  the  paintings 
and  beautiful  colorings,  the  backgrounds  are  seen  to  be  moral 
sentences  and  instructions.  Thus  we  are  often  surprised  by 
virtue,  and  things  please  us  where  they  are  least  expected. 

But  Ruffhead  does  admit  that  Warton  was  justified  in 
saying  that  a few  of  the  images  introduced  were  not  applicable 
to  any  place  in  particular.  They  are  rather  descriptive  of 
beauty  in  general,  than  of  the  peculiar  beauties  of  "Windsor 
Forest."  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  for- 
est at  that  time  afforded  but  few  images  which  were  peculiarly 
characteristic  of  it.  There  were  no  magnificent  lakes  and  cas- 
cades there  for  him  to  describe,  nor  were  there  the  beauties 
which  have  since  become  a famous  attribute  of  the  forest.  But 
those  few  beauties  which  were  peculiar  to  it  have  been  described; 
and  the  descriptions  of  the  other  images  which  were  not  charac- 
teristic of  the  forest  alone,  have  been  admirably  done.  Ruffhead 
considered  them  to  be  indeed  excellent  in  their  kind,  and  that 
they  proved  Pope  to  be  possessed  of  a prominent  talent  of 
descriptive  poetry. 

In  one  instance  Warton  preferred  a Greek  image  to  that 
of  Pope,  because  of  the  "pastoral  wildness,  delicacy,  and  un- 
commoness  of  thought"  it  contained.  Such  a choice  seemed  strange 
to  Ruffhead,  for  he  believed  that  the  perfection  of  pastoral 


la  Ji  10  9^;f  oi  ^asdS  f'^ic^Dnoo,^ 

"iT'O'lvrtT  •spMUiiW^  lii  Mil  w l&ixod  %lii  10  rps  ^ foiA. 

* ■' 

bo{>3  ref  ^i*ipv<No  9d/  il  -'41^  Jxol^^i:r!>;i9b  te-rwotfo  nasi  &d^ 

xJ^^  eaa  0$  aJt  •«»  aradw  rmlio  '.9aaaa,< 

‘ ' ■•*  ^ t 

Xoiv^ri  0^  r ep*.  PX*B  uftavor^ead  msii  .oiaatriolop  ortJi '3> 

• ■ • • . 'V  ^ 

*0Cf,  boaJtic?!it-c  rre^lo  p*i-i  wrr  sjjii?  , artoiJ^ouTcie^ti  .’jntc  »eotte^rtp« 

"1^  . ^aael  a*x^  \3d&  e^dif^  Oti  •e/ieXq  tao.  ,t#oii2v 

^ "li 

" £fi  SictM  !ie<»b  MorC?^^  iiJil 

'■•/'•■  ■ ~ • • ft  . 

elrfisoljD^^ro  cJoft  9*5ow  oosnoi  ?irfi  In  t'*1  jb 

>'•',*  . ■ i •->  ■ 

lo  T£tfi4^4TC  ••£*  :<;OiiT  «i  ec«Xl  o^„ 

''  V ■ . - 

TtvBXwiW**  lo  «el^w»wf  rSXIfsooq  «*r»*  Ic*  norf^^  ,Xi5*i»tHoa  xri 

-^1  beT'sMfifjl^cre'r  o^oT  rwrfio  e#{;f  nO  ".K*©3o1t,_ 

■■  ■ ■'  ' ^ '■ 

’iXxt  i-Ci/o«<l  0^0#  noi^bf'  8©Sj|6ti;'  if^l.  botyrtlfA  ac^iiif 


-8U&  Mj*  ^e02£6l  #r0Oilin?)^  oa.  ©tow  ©tojff?  .oi/fel^ofi/irriirfaV 

.t.  ' . .±  ''  " ■'  . .-  ►-,«  • . -:ViHiB'*’-'i 

, ^ . ■ IP  ''  ' 

t0«  ,©<Jito9&b  ^oit.  aradJ  aaJbQO' 


- >9 


F S.K! 


.iaifrof  9ti4,  fq:k9'iudlr^H  tiui^mf  m ©cicoof  ©ocio  ersd  dctrlw^: 


^;5od'lxp^«b  ^wod  ovat’  o*t  ix^iXKio©^  o aw  dp^ste  salJu^ad  ©?»or£i  .,i 

T<  ’ . ■»  '*  J f!.'  , ^ ■•  ,:  <3 

■ «08t-*rfo  ioit  010V  rioJtiiv  xoifrto'oxii  *woilqitci90>  «ii|  ba«-j 


2, 


^4tJ0  iOonO  ^a-axpf  94^  1©  oi^  vi"S©^' s 


■'\S^ 


Mu  ^bniiL  rlarif  i/ToXJIooxo  SeeMi  ^ 0^  croni  fiwteblocoo  * 


' '■'f. 


r^t,-T;7  r- 

t .!i,  * f6,.iTi0SM^f  iaaaU! 


»«Jtr/c?iq  ^ iiW^ooovvr  99- 9 f bvfant  v#£j!^  ^ 

'~^  **  •*  *1^ 

■ i ■»  .tx^ooq  ovi^qiio-oefc  F 


oi  >©84Jri  X0oiD  A J>9^irpf9tti  ci0-«itfV  ©«o  xit 


■ -ri 


' VI 


. ?•* 


-,iv*  feci#’  fAloJec^x"  lo  ecaeo©^  ,eqo^  lO 

:•  ■■'  ' V*  ' ' ‘ '-.  ’ ^«  ■ ■ • '■ 

©atwiXa  l)«ii,©«e  ooiertoa  ' .MfliisMoa  vti  ^dd^uotii  lo  »«®f?njwop; 


*>9V0iI©pf  9d  roj  ihaadffufi  oi 

**"  . *"  " ' ■ r'- 

■ , ■■'  ' . Jl 


■SMW 


■eFanflei 


-26- 


images  was  to  be  simple  and  quite  natural.  Pope’s  image  was  of 
this  type,  but,  nevertheless , plaintive  and  pathetic,  and  expressed 
with  beauty  and  harmony  of  numbers. 

With  evidence  in  so  many  instances  which  Warton  himself 
has  applauded,  it  must  be  left  with  the  reader  to  determine  the 
correctness  of  the  declaration  that  ”deBcriptivs  poetry  was  by  no 
means  the  shining  talent  of  Pope.”  It  seemed  to  Ruffliead  that 
Warton  would  have  displayed  his  fairness  and  ability  as  a critic 
far  better  had  he  declared  instead,  "that  the  studious  cultivation 
of  descriptive  poetry  was  far  below  the  poet’s  comprehension  and 
sublime  genius." 

A prevalent  criticism  which  Warton  found  against  Pope 
was  based  on  the  fact,  that  the  poet  did  not  excel  in  the  sublime 
and  pathetic  species  of  poetry.  He  said  for  this  reason  Pope 
could  not  be  rated  in  the  first  class  of  Poets.  Huffhead  admits 
that  these  qualities  have  been  classed  as  most  excellent.  He 
believes  this  is  due  to  their  appeal  being  more  universal.  But 
often  sublimity  and  pathos  are  overworked  and  become  unnatural. 

Ruffhead  feels  that  true  art  must  accomplish  a designated 
moral  purpose;  that  it  should  do  more  than  merely  excite  the 
emotions.^  for  a man  is  after  all  a creature  constituted  of 
certain  reasoning  powers,  as  well  as  of  passions.  Both  of  the 
attributes  of  man  must  therefore  be  played  to.  It  should  be  the 
aim  of  all  poetry  then  to  enlarge  the  understanding  and  to  increase 
the  mentality  of  the  reader,  as  well  as  to  play  upon  the  emotions. 


I 


:,i : * 

i . .A 

o ■ 9,  ^ 

L ‘ . 

t 1 w » 

Jf!  \ 

T 

f 

> 

r 

• >«# 

X f :■ 

If 

.♦ 

0 iv 

iio 

* Q 

• *6^ 

/B 

1*).;.^  QGO.'^ 

rr 

-rii 

Lvo 

Bw.  r 

f , » 

t 

Cr{,+  .+  .•  .•**’ 

f*  . 

t . A* 

.-.'Ti* 

to 

itirto 

,.'9'  ~ 

■ C 

-i 

’ " (V 

wo'X 

v>  ' ' 

r 

LO'f  £f  .>;^*^iir‘ 

'* ' 1#' ' 

^ • 
t* 

e.':) 

iS.f 

KC 

ic>i  ^^^ 

:‘'>o<T 

• 

- ■' 

" -■-  9’£ 

0 : 

ir:t  '•  ■*.  c 

9ilF:bF. 

fc-' 

• 

O'?  To  03^  'w 

. -*r 

9 f To 

ry:5» 

A 

JCfTT:  ■ ;••  '■ 

- ■ .-  ■■ 

V r 

<r 

. "i  w 

•f  •.  i 

ca  ••'^4or‘‘ 

’ 

•-' 

:-  or. 

ooef^ 

f. 

if»b 

r, 

? Cqi::o 

» • * • 

‘XiJ  ' 

‘«JTT  ^ 


. i r' 


£r  " 1 /.  ■'  i/'^.  tii-tl- oat 

-••  -Y.:if  fc:;  c-r/  tc  "TfiV 

Te'  jl, 


a 


‘.j-j  ifiiodire  oxo? 

'>  "i-  io  * f ^’-O'y 


"ft'!?'  9i^?' 


1 


:i* 


« * 


>0 


‘XiJ  &J-’'?:t  :^"uv  ^ v*r!  ,rr 

o.'-v  * i vTat#®' ■^dlr  e^‘*  x s>»  ' - .-yH  ■> 

.‘W  ' -• — 


• * '*"-W  '*'--  ? 

*!  (,'  .^:  i t s:  ffic  I :-.  'i'"-t':A  (li'-r  . .,*v;.!.  r- 


r C9'»r  «r  , c:-; 

i ^r.--!-*  fq  v<  4.-7  .'•'*♦■  r, -*.,  - ‘ -'  -JCt 


’.■'fd't't*  * I* 

V- 

...•j"  ^.i.  .'.t  b/tii  ? X.:.' t .>  [^  ‘*;  I X V ' “ X '^t^ooq  fXc  isifi 


CaX  rfoqy  ^aXc'  .i  ofl  J is'V  i3r  * . X 


Hir., 


-27- 


Ruffhead  states  that  imagination  pictures  things  more 
wonderful  than  they  actually  exist,  and  maintains  that  the  sub- 
lime and  pathetic  are  well  adapted  to  imaginative  writing.  But 
he  believes  it  is  fairly  easy  to  write  imaginative  poetry, --to 
employ  the  sublime  and  pathetic;  but  it  is  a very  difficult 
task  to  describe  nature  as  the  eye  sees  it, --to  disregard  the 
sublime  and  pathetic,  and  yet  make  the  verses  pleasing. 

Poetry  is  allowed  more  liberty  in  the  use  of  imaginative 
affectation  than  any  other  form  of  composition.  But  disregarding 
this,  Huffliead  still  firmly  believes  that  the  poem  must  do  more 
than  delight  the  imagination  alone.  It  must  be  directed  to  some 
worthy  purpose,  either  moral  or  intellectual.  Unless  it  is  so 
purposed  the  composition  cannot  be  esteemed  of  the  highest  order  . 

Assuming,  however,  that  these  qualities  are  the  most 

excellent  species  of  poetry,  Ruffhead  questions  whether  Pope’s 

excellence  in  the  sublime  and  pathetic  can  be  denied.  He  again 

endeavors  to  cast  reflections  upon  Warton’s  ’’Essay”  by  suggesting 

defects  in  the  criticism  of  the  essayist.  He  accuses  Warton  of 

judging  Pope’s  ability  as  a poet  by  using  the  opening  of  ’’Epistle 

on  the  Characters  of  Men.”  It  is  quite  unpoetical  to  exhibit 

much  spirit  at  the  start,  and  it  should  not  be  expected  at  the 

very  outset  of  a poem.  The  beginning  should  rather  be  ’’sedate, 

1 

unornamental,  and  unfigurative. ” Here,  again,  Ruffhead  confuses 

his  line  of  argument,  for  immediately  following  his  criticism 

of  Warton’s  selection  of  an  example,  he  himself  cites  the  open- 
ing passage  of  a poem  to  exhibit  the  talent  of  Pope,  which  is  at 

1.  Critical  Review,  1769;  Vol.XXVII;  London,  1769. 


^ .'q 

e-r  w irtiji  *:  ' . ‘ * . 

Ic^iTfr 


^ CT  ^ ee*..  ‘ ' '-.-"i'  ;r 

V.f  ,'  :r'^  '.,:  u-.vi:us  \f  : i / 

1j  iXoVk’  &4to  :. -V*  &i:.j  ti'?  i 


ili:OLrZ-b  \'itr  £ c?  >‘Jt  iutf  icI^torTA^  \C>L 

s>i\i  •'rt/ p.aioii:!.  qc^c  b\*>  .j.  ^ auB  ^ e::- t» J>.*jc  f b r^auitf 

. :.,lu:  eXa  oa«*v  ' ar-U*'  :fsx  BuriL  ,Dii©i  vJBq  bn: 

aviijGfii^xsaat  be  $'%'  ■’»^  ; i bti-v-IlB  ai  ',"i .' i o-I  ^ 

..-.oi^ir-:  . oq  1o  CXtfl'  roi 'c^obTI* 

• 5' 

a'rourr  e-ft  i’tu/rt  iTTr>-:-.  i^:Li  3f>v«.i  f**>:f  Xfli© 

srjca  < * ©X  vSiC!  /X  ,f  uXa  .'fOivVaij^Ljx/.  ©r;^ 


03 


>©jTl3;tr*^  1 ; S':l\-  'ZSSi.*i‘ 


.vnij.',-;  vV^trcjr 


, -©bio  Ic  t£';ae?>^  a '’  ^ . r,olS  i'ioqnc:>  ©n'?  '»'  :qiu<^ 

Jt.oc  ©r:w  et«  «6 i.-r  I Xnij-f  e®orr^  «A;;i;f  , . ’••*:rc,  * , ■;:f  trjuta* 

s’eqo-  rcr  '^'T'^T 

n *'•:  ©iX  fiJCD  ol  ■tsrrj'/sq  brtf.  or:iXdv.r.  enV  rr:  rx©r^?> 

3TT  %'  * V ,© -i '’  -i  ’ ’ .t;f7  rr-.'^iJ  o«Xle*jf  ^slpo  o*  dic-'vahi'^^ 

'!•:  c^.  o:.  . ■' -*  ’5*’  meioi^XlS  0^^  ’fi.  s^ra'rcb 

-j  ^ :cjZ*’-lO  ^n.^^*o.':  o ivoct  m i c*4>-.-S.  ;5b:r^ 

tv^  ixai^90q:iw  ui  . . SC  *!; -'  ' OA;-tJBn''  “'  . 

.-  - wii  »cf  ^•'in  ft  tnf  •••  ^ ' ’.*' ;q« 

. . 'jc  .-toni-ij  x^ar 

aosi 'ii'C'O  br.Lv.  '*-'*  ^ , I :x  , :iorrr 

eiri  giriTroXCC"  ■*>' xb©-;x  .t  ^0^  , .\:*j3TU5‘X0  lo  erri  r ah*f 

©.''d  3«j-i5  ? r^amLX  ? : Cc;>^^£JC©  rtt  lo  noifoe’  1 •■  ."d”i£V  1< 

X-'  el  Kcidr  dneXc^  & X oi  c©'. ; /-  Sf-^ 


\abos"  ©'.1  tea  a''v;o/:3  . r : rntX'.oX  aisiw 

X. 


»5rft 


:r.  fov  ,7  ''7*;I  r. 


-28. 


once  dramatic  and  startling.  Again,  to  show  Warton*s  partiality 
in  criticizing  the  poet,  Ruffhead  argues  that  it  was  almost 
burlesque  to  challenge  a comparison  between  one  of  Pope's  fam- 
iliar poems  and  two  of  the  most  finished  epic  pieces.  He  says 
it  was  most  unfair,  but  does  not  support  his  statement  in  any 
way.  The  "Critical  Review"  agreeing  with  Warton's  view,  sub- 
stantiates the  comparison  of  the  essayist,  and  believes  he  was 
quite  justified  in  employing  such  examples.  This^  it  says, 

was  the  only  available  means  since  ^ope  had  no  epics  which  could 
have  been  used.  Moreover,  barton  chose  one  of  the  pieces  in 
which^"Atterbury  and  Bolingbrolce  declared  his  chief  strength  and 
talents  pecu3.iarly  lay." 

Ruffhead  appeared  to  be  confused  with  Warton's  criticisms. 
He  found  no  basis  for  the  statement  made  by  the  critic,  that  Pope 
had  none  of  the  sublime  and  pathetic.  To  be  sure,  the  poet  wrote 
nothing  which  possessed  those  qualities  throughout.  But  yet 
within  the  works  of  Pope,  there  are  a "thousand  passages  in 
which  the  sublime  and  pathetic  are  carried  out  in  thar  utmost 
force  and  perfection."  These  may  be  found  in  "Windsor  Porest", 
some  of  which  Warton  himself  commended.  He  further  cites  numer- 
ous passages  of  sublimity  in  "The  Sssay  on  Man",  and  the  fourth 
book  of  the  "Dunciad."  The  verses  to  the  "Memory  of  an 
Unfortunate  Lady,"  and  his  "Eloisa  to  Abelard"  particularly 
show  the  tender  and  pathetic  feelings.  The  "Ode  on  St. Cecilia's 
Day"  has  been  esteemed  the  most  sublime  of  his  lesser  composi- 
tions. If  Pope  had  given  no  other  example  of  the  sublime,  the 

1.  Critical  Review,  1769;  Vol  XXVII;  London,  1769. 


( 


'It : : '■>  : . ' ' ' rf  0 j »o<c • 

iiiLw  Jl 

- O • *ic  f 'o  ru^*- 

■■  V*'  c ' -• 

'^Ti*  nt  ^ trf  t 

-cfLf"  , -v  r*  * t*’ 

J,:':  fc,»-  , 

.t'Vit'i  . ‘ 

bf'JC'yi  Qtjliiti  at  fvi  ■• 


, . .. '» I oDno 

• " , ; 0‘f> 

-O'  ■ -r*.":' '■>;  .’0  oi-  ®r;/tejC*i«f 

tl  jcof  ■' ' <r^  hrui  uvoc-T  ^ 

’vO.  cxi'Q  cf*.,-:  «eofc  ^j  - ' , ' ialtm/  t tot’  ' — *i 
':?rl4»o'r£j3  :^dc  iiO**  ®d  .vnr 

^5>dao  ©r:**  : •'c  oli/ujjcncj  2>iii  i:^nzs^| 

5«»X»  '.  r/s  * :.  p 

eorla  ol  /i-vo  \L:..  9/f 


ni  ?:ia  '"m  &.:o  *ro;i<  ' .■  n«f4^ 

X 

•X'  . 'is-'io  Co?:  i^.u*  . -"A**  .-oMw 

" , *4^  ' ^ ‘)c  r.'TtXijJ', 

2:  i^>‘lo  •^’  .:  ' 'r^  it  ‘ c aJ  .':-'■ 'if  • s;  .<■■>  ‘■•to.- 


.-  T 


..'  i: . i*rO  ■-  .'i' t 4 ' ■ ' • r.  tizt  n -j  e ? ’ * ; e i &i  .■ 


- tr 


f).v  -.t,'  J-r.;>fj  5r.*t:'  , 


' '>?  . b:sR  s3rxX<Xif3  lo  on 5"  fe&I 

V • • . tr  - i,..  ; . : :>iii ' ir*ijp  yeoi/;?  ^i*aoo«?.o't  i'  ’ .*^  nnid^ort 

r -a 

.• ' .;-‘55  I r*.^r.  1}  $*:5  oioiTj  , I '?'■• 

X X-  nii'A  ni  ^tr-  s'C-e  ■ oi^oix- N":  . ...-  .-ciiT^ 

, . *roa£v  ;:v7”  / : : nOl  a ^ y,£.tr;  o latiT  . iv-*c;o!:nj»<t  bfts 

• -*se»CTa;i  ' .io  •:dixuTi  , {'.:ii.  t r e.  *'.  j'e ../ J;.^  .'  '.nf-r.*  v*  .:ei;*v  'io  9.-.' 3 

“ - ' . : -"■  ,”m:.  to  v-.'iC'*  ix  c »j*,  ■ a : c- 

i»^  iO  ^ ' 2.'^  ' .^  ti-j  "fr  *^nA.  . ^ :/co-j 

. T" '■•‘C  J ^'.:.-rq  "i'.'ixi.XO'fA  • »irt.  e ;‘.>‘ln!J 

■»'  \ nc  DtO^’  sr  ' rtX^'^’r  • U'r  ./  SQ  fcii£  0/  ^ rc  ia 

-tc-rrvoc  te  uir-  ^0  ^rlXXiJa  3.-:^  f55i:'0&;?  *0  ii- ■■  ei 

, s^. t '■*■;■  s “io  nXqiTOX-  on  ' vir^  L&l-  ' . , , ott 


;l.  ivx 


c?:  Xi’'  ;?:jx  ,w»iv»H 


-29 


"Messiah”  sdone  would  hare  proTen  the  sublimity  of  his  genius. 

Ruffhead  is  indefinite  also  as  to  another  probable  reason 
for  Pope  not  excelling  in  these  qualities.  Warton,  he  said,  may 
hare  considered  too  seriously  the  fact  that  Pope  made  use  of 
sublimity  and  pathos  only  occassionally . But  this  would,  in  the 
mind  of  Ruffhead,  prove  to  strengthen  a poet’s  claim  for  the 
talent.  He  contended  that  it  was  sufficient  for  a poet  to  ex- 
hibit his  genius  in  a mode  of  composition  such  as  description, 
the  sublime  and  pathetic,  only  when  the  occassion  arose. 

The  fact  that  Pope  himself  has  given  his  reasons  for  not 
writing  in  the  sublime  and  pathetic  species  furnished  Ruffhead 
another  argument.  He  said,  the  poet ’s "strong  sense  and  moral 
cast  of  mind”  inclined  him  rather  to  the  didactic  and  moral 
compositions.  As  a result  many  critics  have  confined  his  ability 
to  those,  and  have  inferred  that  he  did  not  excel  in  other  types. 

With  all  this  discussion  by  Ruffhead  concerning  Warton *s 
criticism  of  Pope;  that  the  essayist  frequently  only  selected 
detached  passages,  and  chose  openings  as  good  examples  of  the 
poet’s  work,  we  still  feel  that  he  has  not  proved  his  point. 

Por  there  are  good  reasons  for  every  supposed  defect  considered 
by  Ruffhead.  He  further  tried  to  subdue  the  essayist  when  he 
complained  that  "a  mind  with  a set  opinion  seizes  only  those 
particulars  which  favor  its  rash  conclusions."  But  obviously 
this  argument  does  not  hold,  for  it  is  conceded  that  Warton  was 
not  of  an  invincible  opinion  concerning  Pope.  The  critic  did, 
however,  question  Pope’s  right  to  the  title  of  poet,  but  he  did 


; . - -f 


n . 


i-vai  • r^'.’rfcT  . •* . . : -.  J5  V'4ii«  v‘  i. : ■caallL.'-t 

.:•.  ,•*».  ■ , -■•J'jMT  . . l^2X*-cp  t.  ’i  t'  •.»:•'  :70<J  tu^ 

: (ft  fML,  " a."‘l  7-^  7 •'  ''.•r 7 ^ ‘ m 

: ' , ' <:yr  JjL'K  . v£.“.' jT^i  “v  >‘oc  xZno  ^.Tc 

e tdI:  r-i-£lo  'V^‘?a<  ^ :i  st.'T'  ,:•/:«> tia 

-:cv  : let  icr9^  ':tiJ a c.'.  'r  t i bfit^neir  ' c^'  . *.  « Tjbv 

, 7v  i pr  ‘ i uo-irroo  '‘o  aijon  b .r.  Siflrr?  - 

f * 

.QC07^:  -If;  *:  " 'c  TV  \iTro  ^ t * ''rL*-  sTlSrfLS  ex£i 

.;''  t. 7 r n.cn  6U>**f  *'a‘-nlr{  >*  ;o«l  s.- ^ 

'■■’•  '''•t/  'j  .'il’  TMt  *i^  :c^icrji  aiisr.txr':  f>5fc  " lire  :<rJ  Hi  3r;-‘  xr 


,r>‘'  XOi!r  t>d‘  ^\:X9B  , oH  . 70ft?03^. 


,.•  Oii: 

N T *, 

. ‘ 0 

9 .'  . ' 7 ? 7 ir.  li*  6ftrrxx-i.': 

•*',':'h:T  to 

cin  ft,, 

i'.iZ.noo 

ft '•;?■.'■ 

ft’D,':  J I70  ’•  f?v  : /5 

«^v 

. U tF.oqXQQ 

. f;orsj^  't  ? ,/*■.■.• 

;:.'  £a'j' 

■ft  ■.. 

ijVj;  ; 

}\  tr-  ,ft«-  ; 

-’ 

^‘■:yl/'■■i 'Ijff  '<o*u^. 

irc^ri  xrlrro  IXiJ 

i X*’' 

f-a;.' 

: '■•  '"-1' 

'■  ''.r-vo  v.r:t.'9(7pv'.c^  >'! 

creXoiv  fxo 

t^i 

:5i"  , ; 00;:.  «#j  ■•'  "■ 

. i.  . »-  1 . 1 . ..  ■ 

■-  •;  r '■  Cl  :"cf; 

- ' 

'■  /"J  '»■ 

sXr:  b&vo*x^i  ^Ofr'ftF-rr  c-»;-:  *r:r.t 

, *■  ( d ' tOfirr 

i 

■ h^rCQiUlVti  vTviTe  7*-* 

Td..'JX>Bt  boo; 

■-'  —:s  % % 

*-r 

■.  O 'V/ 

.•'■ :- .'.  '!  c-  hit  ft  it  jo  n V c j s i ' 

r<  -f  ^ .,. . ,»v 

^ W -«  «w>  * * V " w*  ‘ 

. ...  Z^Lii  \S 

:’.3c.r  j v£7o  rl'e::  nuxsxXqo  « ;{^hr  6rri‘:  : ■*  t>9H  te£qz:cr. 

'-.;joivo'o  l£t^  , ai0.ht>.'  ;of:oo . cic«x  ai  X •-  *;:'3  ; : ’.  fw  \ 1 . 

■.'  ; •?  In  ^ t.‘Ob6xrcr)  et  .1  7./^  , hi  J7/i  ^n^rrxr^xx'  «JLri:f 

,£:£*;  oX:titC5  Oil''  . ,v.'^  j ai«^orro;  ■.: 'j  rrri''(0  o icflr.ulvni  nn  tc  *oa 

^!*  ‘- -■'  ,,■*  :•■[  3fli  ci  t.tii'X  tiCv' 3 , . ..‘V^vor, 


-30- 


so  with  an  unprejudiced  and  unbiased  mind.  Then  Ruffhead  en- 
deavored to  combat  the  mind  of  barton  by  defining  the  attributes 
of  a good  poet,  and  showing  Pope's  adaptability  to  such  qualities. 

It  was  in  the  "Rape  of  the  Lock"  that  Pope  appeared  to  be 
a real  poet*  He  did, to  be  sure,  attain  some  reputation  by  the 
style  of  his  "Essay  on  Man"  in  which  he  displayed  "such  an  un- 
common compass  of  learning,  such  extensive  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  and  such  strength  of  judgment,"  but  the  full  force  of 
his  poetic  genius  was  not  known,  nor  felt,  until  it  was  observed 
in  this  celebrated  poem.  Ruffhead  said  that  all  the  powers  of 
his  talents  were  there  displayed.  His  "beauty  of  description, 
richness  of  invention,  and  the  glow  of  his  imaginative  powers 
display  themselves"  in  the  "most  exquisite  harmony  of  numbers." 

Ruffhead  earnestly  believed  that  if  the  writers  whom 
Warton  commended  for  their  wit  and  good  sense  had  had  the  harmony 
of  numbers  which  Pope  possessed,  there  would  have  been  no  doubt 
as  to  their  right  to  the  title  of  true  poets.  Since  Pope  had 
all  of  these  qualities,  his  title  of  poet  could  not  justly  be 
denied  by  any  one. 

Our  author  considered  Pope's  versification  a magic  which 
never  failed  to  charm  the  reader  to  a degree  of  fascination.  In 
his  works  there  is  a genius  of  style,  which  is  an  indispensable 
factor  in  the  most  excellent  poetic  composition.  And  it  is  to 
these  qualities  that  Pope  owes  his  superiority'’.  He  particularly 
possessed  a ready  supply  of  expression,  and  a diction  always 
correct  and  splendid.  Here  does  Pope  truly  show  himself  to  be  a 


' ’rnu  nM  uwr 

.'/a CO  ci  Sv'SOT*®^, 


li  > r r*  /■ 

*<•  w#  ^ 


to/*  JL’KiWz  «7  oe  ' 


iS  oj'.-t**  o it  Jiiw  J 

, .. -2 


J. 


I , - & Av 

-V.  *♦  »•>  M".4^r'r  / •• 


~cr 


:s  .o  iu&ma, 


1 


-'^tr  rff-  ..  '"  ? ’V  *i:.  ^^  o:£  'ci.in  -ri  ” 

MCiUr".  \o  ^ T;  ■rz-isiij. 

'iv  r I ':  ii;-’’ 

f:»\n;;2£Kfo'‘-P«t,-  "J*  rii.t^oq 

,z,.-  y.i  b ' ' . [90  ii  :l 

, li'l  '.  < \':';;'V' s.1  , .,  ■■".*• 'j  ■ti?-'i*  e»T'V  iijl 

■ ' ' o<i  9Viifsi  3dc  .i  *lo  •»rcXi  ■»-•-  « Air.€-:r  *r^  ^ 

“ . •iv-frjL'rr  r'  T': '‘' ? I :r v* -iOT " 5^-i-  U*  ' ; ' C .J  \>' ^'TOIu. 

) 

fcJCGir  ■•■*■  ■?  * - i :i  ' *>  - ..' * "!  vXi  A s.  ; ' 

'ft'. cr^  i?";!  r**}"!  af’rra  . t s '♦?  i' Tti^a^  tc.^'  •’  ' . -J’lsiW 

■r  .'::l>fj  O:;  .:D:ii  -SfT/^/  - ';V  • v : ".  i , ^ ^ '.  1<  *1 C 

f>-vi-ri:c  . ■‘•c  'm. *r1  ' . ’ iltuii  c<f  ut 

-■•  ' vri  vC''  •I’vVI. 8i."'  ,ov  irl^L'L  •-“■r'f  fLa 

;.  t.-'i  '?  C M C'  Of'J  0&  bf  , •" 

■ u^o%sify' t r ■■  : ,•  'x-‘ ‘ - xrrv  £ ai  sTe-  • vif  t ’w 

oi  b:  . i^i.u^trcc  ocii-  . :aoi‘^oxe  ^5or  ‘^1  tc.c‘o>:' 

.v[':'y  rxo  i •.■•-•i.'iru  hb.T^  ai*r  o aqo-r  .-r-'j  t.i  ‘ 9h,9cii 

y^&r:£m  r(r  .j  ;.^»  r ? , ^ !:i'ac*x  iX/»  : \N.az  y ^2  'P?>CQoq 

''"Li  iJ  aq*'''!  39c?i  T-. 3 .!, 


—31— 


great  poet.  Por  the  style,  rather  than  the  matter,  is  the  true 
’’distinguishing  characteristic  of  poetry.” 

Ruffhead  tried  to  leave  the  impression  that  Pope’s  merit 
was  so  high  above  the  average  standard  of  writers,  that  it  was 
beyond  all  adverse  criticism  by  the  learned  world.  The  poet,  he 
said,  was  one  of  the  few  whose  fame  was  so  firmly  rooted  as  not 
”to  need  the  prop  of  partiality  to  support  it,  or  to  be  in  danger 

of  being  shakened  or  undermined  by  prejudice  or  caprice.”  And 

of  these  few  Pope  was  capitally  distinguished.  But  even  so, 

our  poet  suffered  the  adversities  and  fates  of  every  man  who 

started  from  the  common  crowd  of  life.  His  rising  fame,  however, 
soon  soared  above  the  reach  of  the  ignorance  and  envy  of  those 
who  “waged  war  against  his  merits.”  And  his  talents,  fostered  by 
his  benign  and  ingenious  friends,  daily  became  greater  and  strong 
er,  until  he  excelled  in  almost  all  species  of  poetical  compos- 
ition. 

The  “Life  of  Pope”  seemed  to  be  unfortunate  in  its 
appearance.  The  book  was  received  almost  wholly  with  ill-grace. 
In  a characteristic  statement,  Johnson  expressed  himself  very 
strongly;^  “Rufrnead  kno-'.'TS  nothing  of  Pope  nor  of  poetry.”  Of 
course  such  a statement  must  be  taken  liberally,  nevertheless, 
there  were  numerous  criticisms  which  seemed  to  effuse  from  fair 
minds,  that  designated  Ruffliead’s  work  as  somewhat  of  a nonentity 
One  critic  has  said,  "there  are  very  few  material  facts  in  the 
’Life  of  Pope’,  but  what  may  be  found  either  in  the  notes  of 
bishop  Warburton,  or  in  Warton’s  "Essay”.  It  is  remarked  in  the 


1.  "Memoirs  of  War ton;” 


Wooll , John:  London,  1806. 


■ jT  rmt  — . 


L'T.?.  o-'.: 


« T U.T't  'izit’t'  " ,'•'*■  * ' •.  <■  * 


-j'vaor  .'.i/j. 


”.■*•£  i *» a7  :,;t  ii . .*  fMr 'j;  '■  V 

■-  T*V‘  { I’lf 


. ( 


'-  • a-i  r -r  ■•r'-'*  *1;-  oc''J  utir-  .iijaep^ 

, ' ‘ * viiC^l^xaq  3L^  *:(  c* 


i.  .'9  .‘ 1 i’j.  , ro.Mir  'c  ft:  > 

fto  tTJ»«  C ad:t  •.,  ' a:ftlol^iTO  arTi  v^a  cf 

‘»>.j  a;  iJHj'v'. 

■ ■.  '..  r>  ^ 

' ;:A  . / 'tc[viu  - _.  >i.  v;/  befrisnaiKtU  %C  pa  a esij^r-.s. 

, n:  'IOT9  . -3  -ii*-  •<..■*  ■>  .'  . ir  vc!: 

'w  oBc.  -.iPTa  ^0'  a .‘i  uai;?  1 ^ <':r 

, :..r;  ii'T  i< ' K . ■;•.  n ii  mci'' 

. :^  •-;  •.'«»  ; r'tif.'^'ir  ' ,!  © . = 0*'^*.  f:’. ? fvc-’a  >r*:.=joa  r:ocfl 

^.•>:IbvwC  . , qJ;:!  LtiA  '.  . iCii  * or^ 

ftt-- •!  . : p'.'?,  o.'iic::-:  ^ ■'f  J:*!*  ^ * . .'.:to  S ‘ir’ 

*:.  *?o  Z^r.  :t  r>?  > ...  '•alia ora  r.,:‘  .t^- 


s*'.  :'ri 


,-  '■-’  .-\‘x  v'^J'.'.hy  "fc  i-  Ti  ; a»Jir  kO^.’J 

^ ’ m 

’Ctev  ' i^r.cn  ,f..  «i-“?^;TX©  i j rtr^cZ  , ' ,»*£t R tU^-ftlTL  . ^ _ ..0  ^ /=■ 

tc  rca  b^icM  \ 

. -.c**.’'  (f^terc  . ' i.^'ij.1  ^TO.'oJ  ^£:j2i  . (.':■;>*?»: o 

•rl:  r:.»i  •:.':o:.  v;  ..  e ::i  i:  14 ’.\n  oiiLZtnssn  0»-- 

’•••f:'  .0,T  *0  4afvKrc..  -yp,  s ' hr  cl:  4i  , h;:?^ 

o:.^  ;t-  a.*c..j^  £^i-r  wo*t  ’C'rc*v  cifa  • ttr, ..  " ,6ii#y  ;ifiri 

>o  "a:*  ;£T  *:;.■?  ni:  ►irti/o'Y  ©d"  >»V  v'-'^  ,’oqc.  “^c. 

.*  1 :*i:  *-  . a’fTv^'iaT  nJt  .aA-J-u  >'tjsV'  qoftaid 


. '5/  ,rfofi 


' ,XXooir  * : *r.p^  eziont 


-32- 


’’Memoirs  of  Warton”  that  the  T>rork  is^  ”a  performance  in  which 
censure  hecoraes  harsh  and  at  times  trivially  minute;”  a work 
which  is^  ’’deunned  with  faint  praise.” 

The  ”Monthly  Review”  also  discussed  the  work  in  a terse 
manner.  Ruffhead  'believed  that  people  ‘became  curious  at  the 
successes  of  the  few  who  attained  heights  “by  their  talents, 
and  that  the  pu'blic  desired  to  learn  of  their  history.  He  said 
that  nature  endowed  men  with  equal  faculties.  These  declarations 
are,  in  the  opinion  of  the  ’’Review,”  somewhat  far  fetched.  It 
contended  that  very  few  have  adopted  the  ”notion  that  the  fac- 
ulties of  men  are  all  equal.”  It  claimed  that  very  few  people 
would  "become  interested  enough  in  Pope's  history  to  “be  stimulated 
to  the  study  of  the  ’’Life”  in  order  that  they  might  'become  poets. 
In  all  pro'ba'bili ty  they  would  read  it  primarily  through  curiosity. 

Another  angle  of  criticism  which  came  very  close  to 
censure  appeared  in  the  ”Critical  Review.”  Ruffhead,  it  said, 
thought  that  Warton's  ’’Essay”  stood  in  the  way  of  his  own  work, 
and  rendered  his  own  undertaking  superfluous.  This  was  a verit- 
a'ble  truth, for  the  "Review”  impartially  stated  that  hard  as 
Ruffhead  had  ^^rorked,  he  did  not  "depreciate  the  well  received 
"Essay",  nor  did  he  "render  it’s  critical  decisions  disputable." 

It  is  evident  that  many  of  Ruffhead 's  efforts  were  mis- 
directed, or  in  fact,  very  often  'became  analogous  to  those  of 
'barton.  The  essayist  said  that  Pope  excelled  in  the  moral, 
satiric,  and  didactic  species  of  composition.  Ruffhead  declared 
that  Pope 's "strong  sense  and  moral  cast  of  mind  inclined  him 

1.  "Memoirs  of  Warton."  Wooll,  John;  Lnndon,  1806; 

2.  "Critical  Review;"  London,  1775. 


yc  l:'-.  I i X07  c’ 


• f 


* • f .-*•/•>  - 
I > w *#  • ; >*>« 


^ *Ja  «ioe 

‘ 3:T-iJ  /jv.--’;:'  ■ .,'';3(f  S'Stfi  • c 

_-  :.  .‘  P r^  ^ '('.  t;  ^.iv  bo'-.'  c.'-!*  i'*;.'!  ■,  ' ,'  : ' ** 

0;^^  j^U-<.::7UC  QLMIC'  ■ i^T-inor  ;/Ji  . ;. 

.C*>  if  '•<:  •'  f ’."*r  •..  "v  vr?"  • «*.;i -'^O  ’•.  •'wO 

i>i‘Ja  .-'.  . v;to^ ?X'i  lit ••■  ^ ■■•  o ^ 7f  o/ ''Ix/'t  v<v1  -Xo 

.S':  ' "-TCi;  -:>u-9riT  . ^ .■;r:-  CO  ' ~ . y''  " I;  .N?rt  wJSXi^ 

. j.'Oit-'T  lsr?fT!>CJ©K  ' .vxfver,'’  v ■ ‘ 

■ . n 

•*•-'  ■.’!  ?>ri*  ib  ‘j*  r:-: i-; ?TJb  • pI  m*!:’*  .■!■•  ' 't .:c» 

*V  .«?C  V'ftl  vKXfCf  ..'■V.':  i»Xo  ^7  •*  . X'XX". 

i -diwi-' .'  ' O.**'  \70i-.tif  : ■ 0«r;-»i  'li  rC^JL'ect^  .*>9t 


5i 


^ tJ." 

i.'J 

- 

1;  ■’ 

r;cT/ 

f»  *^- 

V 

ft' 

V w 

<:  ■■ 

?'.  ' i,T:<.  ^ibcrr  ’^arfv*  v;? i li  t'.t'rfor'r  ' ‘’i  cfX 

■■'*  d'-  ’t  •..•'••■v  lo  f).rr:'T.'‘  *"::':*rv.-:A 

t ■ '1)3  ‘‘y  y'.  t ~mD”  oJr  bb";-*: /c  ©"urCitda, 

-.  ■ ^ ' 
, 'TC'jr  ' 5i;<  *tc  V/-?^  r.t  i." . ^**  p ’ : ..  irfgycjf^ 

a r^rv  ''.h'iT  .X  ri'x3t?3t/i!9  ;g/T^>^%:^*^.  ; .i . ccwr 

f*  ^':f■..".  ^o:ri>.w  0 ' ’cXi"'  ■ •'w'’  c V ■ J;ra5!^  ■ ea'j-  'xc'  oX«/*i 

bffirie'': 't  [tw  a.’..-  Q*  lOt'Z  lK->u*'  .fo,-  .■;'*I0^-  '-iift  bcon'^*-  ’ 

. i;.. :.  OL '•  J.i':-l:‘i'ir:  3’vi  ua  •* 

-euT  '.-  '.‘vr  *^0  '<,.• 'ii.'T  • ii!  .t ' 

lb  bjoJJ"  oJ*  ::ujc«j‘'- T»*rLi  orsoea  . m*1o  ..‘Os'!  fti:  if  , •"  cpixb 

, Xisn '•.  ©,fy  .'•Ti  bi>T'ooy.f)  :*r>  ‘i  f,2i  u ’ . c^i£V 

r'  hf''}*<^‘tvK  . .oii  QO  lo  ‘"p  Oi\+o/iirb  fer:: 

(iilr;  .‘aitiioni:  '.'f  bf  lo  v3j3o  X-ei  c:';  tiii/  ' J' ' .10 1-  c'k  t a”  a * oq  o'! 

' \ 'AOJ0  , rioo-^  ■»'»•:<*''.’  '.  •a.k"  .: 

. ,;r  , Xj?f^r:^2*x'0'’  . ' 

— 


V 


-33- 

principally  to  cultivate  the  didactic  and  moral.” 

The  critics  of  Ruffhead  would  even  advise  him  to  study 
the  art  of  ^7ritihg  poetry,  notably  Horace's  ”Art  of  Poetry,” 
before  he  endeavored  to  write  another  critical  work.  They  ex- 
pressed their  disappointment  in  his  history,  and  implied  that  he 
was  ill  qualified  as  a biographer. 

Then  too,  they  are  dissatisfied  in  the  unfair  way  he 
treated  Wart on.  He  should  not  have  maintained  such  an  acrimon- 
ious attitude  toward  him,  whom  he  lauds  in  the  opening  of  the 
”Life  of  Pope,”  and  in  whose  footsteps  he  so  closely  followed 
throughout  his  work.  They  censured  Ruffhead  for  his  many  su- 
perficial arguments  and  his  pettj^  exclamations,  such  as:  ”What 

various  beauties  are  comprehended  in  these  lines,”  and  "the 
following  lines  are  inimitably  fine."  And,  almost  as  a climax, 
they  advised  Ruffhead  to  wait  until  Warton  could  at  least  give 
his  classification  of  Pope  in  a second  volume,  before  he  endeav- 
ored to  establish  his  reputation. 

Thus  from  the  arguments,  the  statements  and  declamations 
which  Ruffhead  presented  in  defense  of  Pope,  we  draw  rather  an 
unconscious  reflection  upon  his  own  reputation.  And  from  the 
reviews  and  references  made  to  Ruffhead 's  work,  we  gather  the 
attitude  of  the  people  as  being  not  hostile  toward  Pope,  but 
rather  lethargetic.  Ruffhead 's  "Life  of  Pope”  was  received  more 
as  a spent  bullet,  hitting,  rebounding,  and  doing  no  damage. 

Ifor  did  it  in  the  least  stop  the  ebbing  of  Pope's  reputation. 


c 


Arr 


.'  • r 


. s * 


i^  C>f3 


r r 


JB" 


'ri\( 


b..< 


•!:  f.J  L’k'J 


•vr'^ioK  lo  4^:  * a'c-.€*ioH  vT''  - , : *. ■ f rJ4 

■>  '■.''  . V:'  C rtil^OrjL  .‘I  Of i rT~’j.®cr 

fr<^j:rfi*r  . , - . ^*'-  .orx  -.'^1  '.  'a;."  l>#ics'*x^ 

f-:-  ^ 2£  ' . ill-lB/  ;.  ffjt 


dri  *<c^ir  s>r'f  s I - *-«t  -!£iB  \»  j , vJ 

•ccriiod  rts  r(ot/a  ^a;  eyn.i  -ca  bxkiO:'^  ‘ 

■-•^4  *^0  :;-ixrf^q..  Jii'r  n:  :buaf/od  i.  ---  fi-jrrcJ-  f>:j^'4i44z  ..^'  £ 

/ 

h^rc£loj.  vXosc.  r'?  ©c  ex!  </»  ^eort^  ni  ec c^T  '. -i  tI/.i* 

•O’-  V.:-::  Jbae.’tl^ufl  oc  ci/enec  C6r  w ^Li 

■-TP"  : ae  .'ci'.-  . ino  £ln,r.v  zii*  bni*  a^.jeajx^aif 

c:'"  L rs  '* , 30.xi  ^ r: ' tb’  :£jrle-iq|noo  ' u:h''/ad"  bucX^a’^ 

v.*io  i J/-  w‘  V'  ^^4 J:^:la^  ^exiir  i 'x.vcIZq' 

y 

3 ix  f»r  - n rr  o^hSjoK'  I I -{.li;  ? U-^r  ' ::‘jz  :rt^.  \sSf 

< 

■ }-i''  y^y  ‘♦ic'*'-  , •.  vie V '.’■loots  b •/  >7  "I  * o aoi f JteaaXo  ei: 


.!•  > ' l«v - iff  rf  j ilcfcJae  o ‘ lozo 
{Musis’  iobl  *v;  ton©;eto  f ! , ."xfj.-i.'j-'jc  i«r."  fToa':  4i!-iT 


• i j - rc  ‘ 7S1  b i* 

, ''  r-  “io  T)»<  rv'. 

■ 0 xov 

:.’  ■'  f 

;a  -Ti’i  j.-aA.  . : 

■i  .■  •'e.'^x  .'W' : z.l.i 

. 1 - - r>.  . 4 C ^ w vO  J * 

'■-iocajani/ 

i^/.f 

V-  , • 

.7-  0’ ■-'.., ^.:*nx*Sf  r! 

oOliJ  J©r>  :o '‘O 

Irrfc  ...• 

; Ir^z 

* , rr.voi  eII.‘*«o.{  as  0 bii  1j 

.!  ^arioaei  aow  "©.j-jI  . r ^ 'S3i& 'i9;Iv«. 

’S  0:1  ■•  '*  ^>a  , ^ ' ' t'lJ  x’ 

. r.  .C'  ‘o  /rf  '10  i-rtiX'#©  S.{^  -Cfra  .+  * -.ol  -i  vi  oXb  *I0'' 


J 


1 


» 

■t  ..^■ 
f 


-34- 


CHAPTKR  III. 

Near  the  Close  of  the  Century. 

As  early  as  the  Age  of  Pope,  tendencies  away  from 
Classicism  had  unconsciously  crept  in.  The  younger  generation 
of  poets  reverted  to  the  early  English  writers  for  inspiration 
and  imitation.  In  following  Hilton  and  Spenser  they  soon  re- 
placed the  heroic-couplet  "by  blank  verse  and  the  Spenserian 
stanza.  The  rational  temper  of  the  Augustans , in  time  gave  way 
to  the  emotional  qualities  as  displayed  by  writers  of  the  Grave- 
yard school  and  of  the  Gothic  school  of  romance.  The  revival  of 
interest  in  the  middle  ages  appeared  in  various  forms  such  as; 
Walpole’s  ’’Strawberry  Hill  Castle.”  and  ’’Castle  of  Otranto,” 
the  "Rowley  Poems”  of  Chatterton,  Macpherson’s  "Ossian,”  and 
Percy’s  "Reliques.”  The  earlier  romantic  T^nriters  did  not  pur- 
posely rebel  against  the  classical  school,  but  they  were  so  filled 
with  the  love  for  "landscape  effects  in  poetry”  and  a passion  for 
"elemental  forces  of  nature”  that  they  unconsciously  wrote  ro- 
mantic poetry. 

Just  as  the  Age  of  Pope  was  not  wholly  pseudo-classical, 
so  was  the  period  from  1750  to  1800  not  entirely  given  over  to 
romanticism.  This  movement  made  great  progress  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  but  there  remained  such  men  as 


•'.u*  ^0  f-'  ’■>.  .t 


';0  -Citj!'  f’ 

< 

o;A  ©rtV 

r< 

- ■ .-  ■ • V r)  r 

■ \ 1- 

..  Vj  .;:x 

‘i:'  V '7':  ^ ' ■ T' 

. ;- 

-'4  , ^ 

• A V *•  M 

’nli  ' 

I'  i , ,• 

' O' 

ricw,;'*’  7.>-7 

f 

vT  &i  ; '■ 

■ ;:i*s\  :(rf+  * Vc/  i©£c;  '’;j- 

,rr'  •»*": 

• uA 

A/  J 'to  1.  '3^ 

-frvr.'tr' 

yi'i 

Z>« 

f ^ G7-:  i 

Li  X .r  p( 

r.'.vir-'T:  «• 

. ^ ^ A;  . Cl 

^>0 

j .;;  7/ X/'** 

'ft> 

*'  , M* f»','’.'f  :*C 

ft 

n ■ -O'' 

0;;* 

►,  tr  xi-'"*  ->  1.  i.  A < 

t 


■ - ^ 


1 b 

r ‘ ( • -.4  ) »■--- 


aa- 


» • I V.  -/  fc  ^ i 


U '..X  w 3 


, Lr  ^ lO’  *’--^8tC*t  '/>'-c'':"  t:‘f 


:'T3 

,:  i %w  -J  : 

:j  T'  ; 

7 or?? 

wp  i X'jJ.  *'  . ’ 

b*7  £ *•'■'  A . V9tii 

■tJjA  , r 

v'Ciic::  j'--uJ-^aXr> 

♦ • 

"r  yi  1 :7.i  3.-  • ■•■  *'T3 

t ■'  A-7  If'' 

-.. T 7..‘7'r>"  VT'':.. 

t'  .^rcO‘‘-: 

7 £T , *J'" 

. 7-w.  T cld-r 


/•i-6  ‘ .. .i.-.ru-<.>^':  ' ,■':  V r r^'’’ 


o\-  a .'  _-'x  '-y^'A  j*»>aL-' 

1 


ol  ':«)V0  "^Oit  OC'M '■  Oj-Va  -■  orf’^  r- ti*'-?:  u/y".* 

••t,«.‘  " ■ " : ■ ■ 'Gv'v:'.  .i  J'ro-r.-  m'-.’-vcw’  i/T  . . j' n i'i'vIAt.' '•'f 

I 

■ Mr*’  ri-i'i..  1*’^  c-i^r-'^ii  . 7*  "r  C'  tie*"' 


-35- 


Charles  Churchill,  Ccaaian,  Ruffhead,  VThitehead,  John  V/ilcot, 

William  Gifford,  James  Pye,  and  Johnson,  v/ho  defended  Pope  and 

Classicism.  However,  these  men  were  of  small  importance  compared 

with  Young,  Cov/per,  Gray,  Burns,  Bowles,  Wordsworth,  Coleridge, 

Southey,  and  other  romantieis ts . They  did,  however,  have  their 

place;  Johnson  was  one  of  the  hig  men  of  his  time. 

Johnson  was  the  chief  advocate  of  Pope  and  was  called 

the  ’’watchdog  of  classicism.”  Boswell  said,””The  Life  of  Pope” 

v;as  v.rritten  hy  Johnson  con  amore,  hoth  from  the  early  possession 

which  that  writer  had  taken  of  his  mind,  and  from  the  pleasure 

which  he  must  have  felt  in  forever  silencing  all  attempts  to 

lessen  his  poetical  fame,  hy  demonstrating  his  excellence,  and 

pronouncing  that  he  was  a poet." 

Johnson  was  the  combatant  of  the  old  Augustan  school 

of  Pope.  His  arguments  and  sympathies  were  continually  in  favor 

of  loftiness  and  conformance  to  rules.  He  believed  in  adhering 

to  all  the  conventions  of  classical  technique,  and  it  was  his 

desire  that  the  poets  should  submit  to  the  old  discipline,  and 

imitate  the  acknowledged  models.  The  style  and  versification  of 

Pope  were  greatly  admired  by  Johnson.  He  once  said,  "Sir,  a 

thousand  years  may  elapse  before  there  shall  appear  another  man 

vdth  a power  of  versification  equal  to  that  of  Pope.  That  power 

must  undoubtedly  be  allov;ed  its  due  share  in  enhancing  the  value 

2 

of  his  captivating  composition.”  The  ’’Pastorals”  he  considered 
but  "poor  things,"  but  thought  the  versification  was  excellent. 

1.  Boswell’s  "Life  of  Johnson;”  Hill,  George  B;  Vol . IV’,-og.46  ; 
Oxford  1887; 

2.  Boswell’s  ’’Life  of  Johnson;”  Hill,  George  B;  Vol . IV.  og . 46  : 

Oxford  1887; ^ » 


( 


t 


( 


< > , 
\ 


O ■ . .‘V 


( 


e-‘ 


J 


w*  ^ r *■’ 


-36- 


other  writers  could  perhaps  produce  new  images  and  sentiments, 
hut  it  seemed  to  Johnson  not  only  unwise,  hut  a folly  to  attempt 
any  further  improvement  of  versification.  Like  Goldsmith,  he 
disliked  the  "erroneous  innovation,"  the  "disgusting  solemnity" 
of  blank  verse,  and  used  all  of  his  influence  against  it.  In 
conversing  with  Boswell  concerning  Dr.  Adam  Smith,  Johnson  said, 
"Sir,  I was  once  in  company  with  Smith,  and  we  did  not  take  to 
each  other;  hut  had  I knoivn  that  he  loved  rhyme  as  much  as  you 
tell  me  he  does,  I would  have  hugged  him.^" 

Johnson  praised  Pope  because  of  his  almost  exclusive 
use  of  the  heroic-couplet,  and  his  manner  was  such  as  to  expose 
him  to  few  attacks.  It  was  the  method  of  Pope  to  correct,  beau- 
tify, and  polish  his  verses.  With  such  faculties,  Johnson 
asserted,  he  excelled  every  other  writer  in  "poetical  prudence." 

It  seemed  almost  incomprehensible  to  Johnson  that 
Joseph  Warton  should  question  Pope's  title  to  poet.  It  was  Dr. 
Johnson's  statement,  "After  all  this,  it  is  surely  superfluous 
to  answer  the  question  that  has  once  been  asked,  whether  Pope  was 
a poet?  otherwise  than  by  asking  in  return,  If  Pope  be  not  a poet 
where  is  poetry  to  be  found?  To  circumscribe  poetry  by  a def- 
inition, will  only  show  the  narrowness  of  the  definer;  though  a 
definition  which  shall  exclude  Pope  will  not  easily  be  made. 

Let  us  look  around  upon  the  present  time,  and  back  upon  the  past; 

let  us  inquire  to  whom  the  voice  of  mankind  has  decreed  the  wealth 

of  poetry;  let  their  productions  be  examined,  and  their  claims 

stated,  and  the  pretensions  of  Pope  will  be  no  more  disputed.  " 

1.  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson;  Hill,  George  B;  Oxford,  1887; 

2.  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson;  Hill,  George  B;  Oxford,  1887* 

Vol.IV,  Page  46; 


, - rJl£ 

of  J»  , 


-vS.'r.i  ii ' ft.'i  tfi'i  ' C'H  a*.  t.-.“  ‘ . 

•'.  :,?v  ^ ^r;  4fd«:tr;o’  c ‘ ;.c  »o».  +1 

. « i i 

. T-'f  -^n 


r-' 

;:or 

. 7o 

:*  *T"r;©vr 

■r  iri  rs?.. 

‘•v.-'i. 

i<y  "^: 

. :-.  ; t " 9 . ' , 

. - J.  J -1 

, • • r “ ‘ : 

t * 

.fj  fn 

• ^ r-  *r 

‘ 0 o.'ioa r ■'  ■? 

^4.  *;r 

Siv:  ■ 

, - 

f,  >fle 

::c  -'li'ic 

t 

4)  - 1 '"T '.»  jt»‘i  1 3- 

:r<tx  r 

■'V  iw  :. 

a. 

-.  joj  V n 

\ * ' ' ’ '■ 

:•  ;iflr  >C«BC2^0  ll 

■=»0:fc'  J-n 

•-  J 

« ._  * !7 ' 

£j8 

'-ever  '* 

■i  y.rJ  n^'C 

r\  ':.  .^7 

■*  t ^ 

4.  *-:  9T6-( 


>-'i7 


sri 


: c.  C--  j ; n :,'i.. Ct* Ji  j(?c  . -■r:  --';  on;f.(cL 

oac.:j^^;  c,.^  '.  .'r-:  ‘irrt  , f' asL 

, .Jt-v-j  of-  ’‘  3 rwd-^ia:  “i'.""  . yS  .'ffc  7roJ  of  r'i. 

'to^rTi^oX.  < 8!i ' V iJL't j9'?.  'ay^?  . Jsi-iT&v  ai:>  ^ ,;^JLv. 

'* . r-: ■ iJ'.':r'i.,J ; iq " fii  ':»j  TLorifo  .’'3  ’ ;9  0:<:t*  : -’  .^ftv3v('T.r 

Tjosniic  "0  Ovt  *:ic-,:j.  fc*c-es  ■ ' ' 

. •/:  'aar  .fl  ."‘  Oc^  oi  B»Osro‘X  ;ic.iw'  uf.T  •'  '*  ■ -fo  ac:**r«V  - 

Rv:,y-^'i-i^qy3  vre-yi  .>i  :. ' :r : .--.'rt 

3IT!'  r:^o'I  , ’ ''"2*  ' '■'’  'C  «:’  .'■  £joi c?  •' OiJp  - • w ' ' ; C’i 

jb  f^‘;{  V'i  •>r-'/‘  '.i  X;cf  ar;tv»  <•,■  J , 'i” o Vit'-'il  2^ 

ii  ' 'f  O' 5>‘r  ^!-.rri;c‘3t  Qf  /1v+b<j  :j  a I c 

'■  ■•c:-i  ; 'fo. r ■’  'v  'aBSrfp.  v*r'‘?j8t*T  «.-t-  ”‘0/Cs*  X>^tO  X T f'  ' - i 

. ^ .71  •. -^  v.fxr.jCB  ^Off  /XiH-  8.':^^  ob,v/o;i&  i:aiih  .ioL^rr  iioiJ-iiii’let 
0:-<.t  KOCi;.  ::o.fyJ  ‘litK  ,r-ri^  ;frti»fi®'xq  orlt  rcc  'y  vf  cy  frl 

fC-tr.;.,v  ©.-i^  L'oftTiosf,  axff  fv'' j-trri.-i:.:  ‘to  otiov  9df  . a-x-i/ptil  av 


,7aar  ,iVxo’ 


a»T  .^a^r^vr- 

9'f 

:•  i'l  rsf^^OTtq  ti  !•>.■+  fo'. 

; •,‘i^eo' 

©if  IXJ--  ' 

y 

1 O' •-  !■.•  -'xq 
(■ 

t , 

. f ri« 

; ffc snri  0 7»  ■ '5  c ©■'i  i J a ' 

./..ri'- 

;;.^o«a^^c-  :a  o' t:’ 

: r*.  iV- 

, . . rov 

•«  r,  * .-, 


-37- 


Johnson  greatly  respected  Pope  “because  of  the  latter^s 
strong  adherence  to  Augustan  ideas.  He  was  especially  fond  of  Ih  e 
didactic  side  of  Pope  and  this  he  strove  to  imitate.  Johnson, 
like  Pope,  possessed  the  same  idea  of  loftiness  in  poetry.  Neither 
writer  appreciated  natural  scenery,  while  on  the  other  hand,  both 
possessed  a deep  love  for  the  city.  Pope's  dislike  for  the 
country  is  obvious  when  he  said  in  a letter  to  Mrs.  J.  Cowper, 

"I  wish  you  may  love  the  town  (which  the  author  of  these  lines 
cannot  immoderately  do)  these  many  years.  It  is  time  enough  to 
like,  or  affect  to  like,  the  country,  when  one  is  out  of  love 
with  all  hut  one's  self.^"  Johnson  is  still  continuing  the  idea 
of  Pope  when,  about  sixty  years  later,  he  said  that  the  best  sight 
for  a Scotchman's  eyes  was  the  road  that  led  to  London? 

Dr.  Johnson  not  only  appreciated  Pope’s  style  and 
ideas,  but  his  vrorks  as  well.  He  considered  Pope's  "Essay  on 
Criticism,"  though  an  early  work,  as  one  of  his  greatest  produc- 
tions. In  selection  of  material,  and  novelty  of  arrangement,  it 
was  a most  excellent  work  of  didactic  composition.  Had  he 
written  nothing  else  it  would  have  placed  him",  in  the  opinion  of 
Johnson,  among  the  leading  critics  and  poets. 

"Eloisa  to  Abelard"  was  especially  favored  by  Johnson. 
He  doubted  whether  in  all  the  world  there  could  be  found  a work 
in  which  there  were  so  many  good  qualities.  He  received  more  en- 
joyment from  "The  Rape  of  the  Lock"  than  from  any  of  Pope's  other 
v;orks,  because  it  was  "the  most  airy,  the  most  ingenious,  and  the 

1.  Pope's  Works:  El  win  and  Courthope.  Vol  IV,pg.  20 ’.London,  1886. 

2.  Phelps,  William  Lyons ; The  Beginnings  of  the  English  Romantic 
Movement;  Page  13;  Boston,  1893; 


-Vf- 


-? 


9 ’io  r"'  V . ’’i' I'DtiO c«t ' Q»rir  . »*‘i  mcf  jjA  otf  ®5fr©*tdrfi».  "^au^iSj 

,:.  ..  ,.  • wl:.;,f,  0^  9V3"^-  “ "f  Bihj’  1 0.  oJtJoaKli 


. T0<t  at  •bt/Sv  9:ir  ^seaoat 


c 


<*, 

ilw 


:*  « »xl^  ifo  o.'-ii”  ,>:^«n»os  ^»^t?io•*x<Iqfi 

1'’:  ?>:UX;ixfo  « • . * j b*'-'  t ^ ~rS  j-  : 

,-r  . i.  :M  Cv  X*.  ai  ^!-:e  rtorirr  i.  vzJ^moo 

> > i 

pfiir  B«e.;cf  "Vo  tor:L  .c.  oa^  :fx  inr  r»rCv  Ofic.  'tcX  uc\;  .(ciw  Ij* 
'■:••  rl8^om'  asril  '1  , ai.  • - ao*  .:•  ( cb  ’/•X'j^xjiobcaaji  ■" 


X 'o  tj?o  «i:  one  fterir  ,\/':  *":iJ'J0  *■  " , ..  x;.  o^  vto*'}’-!^  ' , iiX. 


,:X 


^■'OhneJ  0*  'i9l  i>ttirx 


ajVs^  :xfj iati Ji'^o  Xiii-  at- aoev-ioL  ;i’t»tic  Xi;i  XTr  attw 

i>i>',i:6  ifidf  bisa  «<-'  ti/cd'-  .rfi^w  “Jo 

^ 89  .*,-■  3**f««!!r.  c^c?)  - f.o^ 

,V/3  »V'>^^c'i‘  r I'j!*’xqqa  ’’Ctw'  rroBm^  - .^r 

<► 

iv  o €:I;  . X^B^'  -vi:  -X  v.-:  ij,  ■'  , xudebt 

-.rabo’x x ^ *jx:v  to  o..^'  vl’^  ■ > lua  d^ljodt  ” < ■'OioxJ'i'iO' 

^ ^ -L .._  ...  v.iXftTO^x  S;'i«  , C^iii'tcrr  ^o  jioi * 3»«>Xec  rrl  . rf  ,l-t 

..  os!i  . rot^/«o..i;c3  oii'Oi^bi  b 'lo  XX*^-©  £,  aa^ 

"'V  -'C-T.l'o  3nt  f ’'ifn^:£z  ‘jr>\-;  bjf/ow  s'i  Ta  -rid:*-:::  .lotjiTvr 

\ 

* 0^  ■'.'-'Ta  -Toi-tlin  r^iti'M.^l  9iii  srr'cct : ,itb«rf.<oXr 

* ...  3f:,XoT.  v.cf  bo'cev*”^  ■.‘X.raiob:©':*  ' 'rr^Xacr/  *5ii:c£K‘ 

^toi?  a bfiao^t  00  f'Xij'  iO  f>Xto*r  ''iii'  iX»  « ’ ioat^f^iiir,’  oK '. 

••,-T’»  O'^'cn  hi.Ti'  ^et  . 31- ;.^i  ■■.  ;•;?  6003- ’cnisai  u-x9iU  'loiitw  ai 

•r-»  fto  Iw  cj.";  aq.efl  f;<T" 

, .:iH«#iAnx  cvac.'i  r-rtia  c^eoci  c.nr  Si  9dut/Xi'^z  .oatotr 

. f*  , OvI;OS . r'?!  X ''  . iii^’.C^  : ajiioW  y’s  -r'l  .1 


ots,'<r-*r.o::  /[«'.  ^%r:rr 


, i .;  f/Tx-fOX  ; riaovl  *;  ,r,i  f ' "*'  r.^ 

' ; ■'0?  r , ; .V/  ‘'  T ;?;x  95c'’'  ; w^iou 


-38- 


most  delightful  of  all  his  compos i tions , 

As  a result  of  this  sincere  admiration  and  high  re- 
gard, Johnson  became  a strong  defender  of  Pope’s  reputation.  ITo 
one  could  speak  slightingly  of  him  without  being  sharply  refuted 
by  Johnson,  ’"nien  Ramsay  commented  that  the  poetry  of  Pope  was 
more  highly  admired  in  his  life-time  than  after  his  death,  John- 
son replied;  ’’Sir,  Pope's  poetr3*  been  as  much  admired  since 
his  death  as  during  his  life;  it  has  orJy  not  been  so  much  talked 
of,  but  that  is  ovring  to  its  being  nov;  more  distant,  and  people 

having  other  things  to  talk  of.  In  order  to  be  in  fashion,  better 

o 

works  are  neglected  for  \^ant  of  time.  ” 

When"  Pope  was  accused  of  simply 
putting  the  ’’Essay  on  Man”  into  verse,  which  was  really  com- 
posed by  Lord  Bolingbroke  , Johnson’s  defense  was,  ’’Pope  may  have 
gotten  something  from  Bolingbroke,  but  we  are  sure  that  the 
poetical  imagery  vrhich  makes  a great  part  of  the  poem,  vras  Pope’s 
cvm.^”  Thus  it  was  when  Boswell  mentioned  the  vulgar  saying 
that  Pope’s  ’’Homer”  was  not  a good  representation  of  the  original. 
Ee  at  once  refuted,  "It  was  the  greatest  v'ork  of  its  kind  that 

4 

had  ever  been  produced.  ” 

Johnson’s  ardent  admiration  for  Pope  is  excellently 

expressed  in  the  following  lines  written  by  Lev;is.  These  Johnson 

praised  highly  and  repeated  them  with  enthusiasm. 

1:  Johnson’s  Lives  of  the  English  Poets;  Hill, George  B;  Vol.III, 
Page  228:  Oxford: 1905. 

2.  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson;  Hill, George  B;  Vol.III,  Page  256: 
Oxford; 1887. 

3.  Bosivell’s  Life  of  Johnson;  Hill,  George  B; Vol.III,  Page  402; 
Oxford:  1887. 

4.  Boswell’s  Life  of  Johnson;  Kill,  George  B; Vol.III,  Page  256: 
Oxford:  1887. 


-’J'  - 


t i n-  rco  -'id  lO^Jc  'o t:»f>  Js, 

- rCj^lrf  brt«  ;::  i t -T  '•<  ‘ ? o .*  ^U3^>*£  i»A 


. , ;-i  .}/ ;. -»t»  1 


"'9*  /5©'t  ^ iuOi:a  ;.v.'  .1.^’  v.'.'^rriiT  c .'  j ti-.:oz  :>zo 

new  ‘ J50^'  vr,*r,.>.:  ■*  .:T  . i^” 

-n.:*  . 9i.i  * 


i)--'  ')  j;n  . • ^ 

a Lt c 0 tj  br[3  , f f 4?  ■•  4 i > 
t«  ^:^T4  ' i ^'isa^  'r.1:  * 

- !0  0 ';/:.a9';:  tfoiffv 

■ irv'  . •?  ».  . 


'■.*0.::o'{ 


. 

• r ..  ’ 

.*> » r ;»i..  .; : 

':  '>  t I ' h 

!8L 

• r • ,'(  ^ A < 

■ *-  J 

• 0 

V 

:ruo 

cjb.*  Si  ;mr  uirf 

JM?:  :v7 

i 

r 

■:-i  ■'  iii  -.7 

r :lT  . r " 

p -it ■ ■>.; 

M 

‘,3^0  0 C; 

itO 

• '.i  ' 

’:'  Hoi  V^qX 


ne£^  3rf<  . ’'j 

trr.' - 5 * so: 


* 


aY:-: 

o-.Y  t 

■:  .^.11I' 

i . 

1 _i  V 

vYa:t  • 

:5  nf,**'* 

iS 

.".ra' 

■rSi.’’'-  P!: 

.raavj;»'f  .t>:  :.T. 

r V orf 

S ^ j ■' 

a«Tir 

4 ■ «t 


" . *-  l '^0'X3;  ar’-?'/  'X?T9.b#^i- 

'V'rfov  ••'ife-  '"  . ’‘--•J  v.a  -f? '.^tv  a.'^rul  3.^r’,7.'’C'fTG'i  i '•  f>o *3-.'*iqXi 

f aiij  A ■. '■<  :\'u:  , X)i><JXA'XC 

. I.XD  ; 

: ■ 01*  ■ , 


,,  ;i(s^4’tc:rt  .r.;!  C!cvci!S- ' ■'•>  00  Yi.;  .’'tc^TiA  - : 

. ■*ix:'  : ' -;.7  o'  . ^ 

. '<V  , T’K  ; r Iv  f. ’fXa^-Hw'  . 

■T  . ■:  . ■;  ; ixioli  Ic  o:xa 

’ . ;;x  •>;  •-  . , 'I'-  ; Yi.  >;;rjxfo'^  • *'7^  ’ ff'.i'rJic.*  . 

. r : ^1x0 


-39- 


"While  malice,  Pope,  denies  they  page 
Its  omi  celestial  fire 
V/hile  critics,  and  while  hards  in  rage 
Admiring,  v/on’t  admire. 

VThile  wayward  pens  thy  worth  assail, 

And  envious  tongues  decry; 

These  times,  though  many  a friend  bewail. 
These  times  bewail  not  I. 

But  when  the  world’s  loud  praise  is  thine. 
And  spleen  no  more  shall  blame; 

VThen  with  thy  Homer  thou  shalt  shine 
In  one  established  fame  I 

When  none  shall  rail,  and  every  lay 
Pevote  a wreath  to  thee; 

That  day  (for  come  it  will)  that  day 
Shall  I lament  to  see.^" 


Lord  Chesterfield  v;as  another  representative  of 
Classicism  in  the  eighteenth  century.  Many  of  his  views  coin- 
cided with  those  of  Johnson.  Sven  though  they  had  mutual  admir- 
ation for  Pope,  Chesterfield  v/as  disliked  by  Johnson.  It  was 
once  said  by  Pr.  Johnson,  ’’This  man,  I thought  had  been  a lord 
among  wits,  but  I find  he  is  only  a wit  among  lords,”  and  of 
his  letters,  "they  teach  the  morals  of  a courier,  and  the  manners 

O 

of  a dancing  master.'^” 

Chesterfield  was  personally  acquainted  with  Pope  and 
knew  his  bad,  as  well  as  his  good  qualities.  He  believed  that 
the  deformity  of  Pope’s  body  caused  his  satire  and  thus  it  should 
be  excused.  He  admitted  that  Pope  was  unnatural  in  his  conver- 
sation, and  always  attempted,  humor  and  wit.  Q,uite  frequently 
the  poet  used  it  unsuccessfully  and  out  of  season. 

1.  Boswell’s  Life  of  Johnson:  Hill,  Beorge  B;  VolJH;Page  256: 
Oxford:  1887, 

2.  Bosv/ell’s  Life  of  Johnson:  Hill,  George  B;  Vol.I;Page  266: 
Oxford:  1887. 


>■ 


■J 


' 0 . 


. ■ •'.T-  ! 

, si:i  T 

*■  ■ I.  - , • -?;7ij.r>A 


, ' .•  c-r 

;v-£r/0'^  ..^lv,'2i  ba>\ 

, / i^wof  ^:'‘JJ■*t*^  X.  :;  r:.:  airo-.T 

Jd  C1«-  t o :t-*  j60  •”' 

i o:l&iq,  'yi'^j.  _ J ’To!{;r  '.. 

; ■'  ■ 

■'  ^ TO  . ,: '*  Irr 

I or  el  ;v  •'  ' • v ^ ■ T 

".'.  ■ 'Cic-:‘s  ::~rr^  ,'£^'i  T 

; V.  wJ*  ■ .*  y . ■ -■  • “73 1 

..!>  t rx*v/  •■' ■'■ 


ij  l i' ue-.-'C'  v*oJ 


r;T«i.V  -'ir\  lo  'iliiS' 


T-0 A©3  c::*  rii.  seioi«0-*'£b 


•■  * • f A 

< 1,*  ■ f J 

;r:.  r.,*j.r  v«J:^ 

.ir  r 

3V:'! 

’n; 1-  J q 0 3v>r 

•4  » 4 V . 

-W  1 ^ . 

b^ht  3 

if  . 

. jir/icL  \<^ 

bf:  'J.  C 

.1  > •' c •■ 

;u"? 

^'1:0'/ 

r» 

C i ^ 

•:  Z b \ I 

' ia;’C 

*'0 

” i jib'ic  Z ',  ■ -^ 

**  r ^ ^ X 

, (?  at 

•ft  'n:21 

i 

3rtCh■'^''. 

’wSX! 

':.v'  , -:a^ 

) a i J •' 

':■■'[ -X" 

.cl  c i .'l 

.r:i:,o-tJ!<i!>  .’  I** 

- orro'^f  1' 

.17,,  r,  , 4 -..  • , . . 

• ' ♦,  '...>•) 

< ■ :'•■  ■.! q ■ - Cti  i'^T'  'i 

■ -.,-f 

E>ev-. 

; ff)  , 

,),  > i ^.^^L'l-' 

£»oo7'  iil:: 

, 1^'  L 

-t-r^iTw 0 .3?i{  :ji  X/’Xfi^ . ‘or''  •-"*  . 9i/!>xo 

•;£a  tsiiipD*:!  r-'l  . . .'■  Vv  •')::£  To^JifC  *'5' *» • -rX'  ‘ ■.  , T^i  .’  -t' 

' .Krc^  fc:;js'  v frx-l'tJ-.’.oaCi,  t.  f'  it  T>'.  u;.-  ».v 

: *•  r^-v  ;’:  --roy'  , : "'I'  : ;■. - *;<>  ' ■>'  T.fo  i . '' 

. 'Jt>u.  • *X- 

; . ;i  ^ : : -;.i.'V::o  'al  i I Q ' rio 

. ,;  • r ; , ._lxC 


-40- 


Lord  Chesterfield  "believed  that  Pope,  along  v.dth 
other  great  leaders,  helped  to  rcake  the  English  language.  It  was 
his  opinion  that,  "Pope’s  works  spoke  sufficiently  for  themselves; 
they  v;culd  live  as  long  as  letters  and  taste  should  remain  in 
that  country,  and  "be  more  and  more  admired,  as  envy  and  resent- 
ment should  subside.^” 

Oliver  Goldsmith  possessed  a similar  appreciation  of 
Pope.  He  expressed  a disgust  for  his  contemporaries  who  formed 
the  romantic  school.  Although  he  was  a follower  of  Classicism, 
often  romanticism  unconsciously  appeared  in  his  v.'orks  . Johnson 
kept  a strict  eye  on  him,  and  ”he  sometimes  seems  to  have  written 

p 

as  if  Lr.  Johnson  were  looking  over  his  shoulder.  ” 

His  admiration  for  Pope  \ms  sincere,  for  he  believed 
the  poet  had  a deep  insight  into  the  human  heart.  His  attitude 
tovra.rd  Pope's  "Eloisa  to  Abelard”  was  for  the  most  part  favorable. 
This  is  clearly  evidenced  by  his  words.  ”The  harmony  of  numbers 
in  this  poem  is  very  fine.  It  is  rather  dravm  out  to  too 
tedious  a length,  although  the  passions  vary  with  great  judg- 
ment. It  may  be  considered  as  superior  to  anything  in  the 
epistolary  vray;  and  the  many  translations  which  have  been  made 
of  it  into  the  modern  languages  are  in  some  measure  a proof  of 
this.'”  Of  his "Bap e of  the  Lock” , Goldsmith  stands  in  accord 
with  Johnson  and  Chesterfield,  in  pronouncing  it  Pope’s  most 
excellent  work.  He  praised  it  even  more  enthusiastically  than 

1.  Maty,M.:  Miscellaneous  Works  of  Chesterfield:  Vol.I;  Pg.l4; 
London;  1778. 

2.  Perry, Thomas  Sergeant:  English  Literature  in  the  Eighteenth 

Century;  Page  396:  Hew  York;  1S83. 

3.  Goldsmith, Oliver : Beauties  of  English  Poetry.  (i«ioulton, 

Charles}:  Library  of  Literary'  Gri  ticism."^/"ol . Ill  .Pg.l68 ; Hew 
York;1910. 


-41- 


the  radical  Johnson  in  this  statement.  ’’This  seems  to  he  Mr. 

Pope’s  most  finished  production,  and  is  perhaps  the  most  perfect 
in  our  language.  It  exliihits  stronger  powers  of  imagination, 
more  harmony  of  numbers,  and  a greater  knowledge  of  the  world, 
than  any  other  of  this  poet's  work;  and  it  is  probable  if  our 
country  were  called  upon  to  show  a specimen  of  their  genius  to 
foreigners,  this  v;ould  be  the  work  here  fixed  upon.^" 

Gray,  like  Young  and  Cov/per,  in  his  early  life  was 
classical,  but  changed  to  a romanticist  in  his  later  years. 

Prom  his  youth  he  had  imitated  Pryden,  v;hile  at  the  same  time 
he  liad  conceived  Pope  a,s  being  one  of  the  finest  writers  we  ever 
had. 

In  1742  Gray  ^vrote  three  odes,  all  of  which  shov;ed 
the  Augustan  spirit.  But  even  at  this  early  stage  of  his  career 
he  wTOte  a sonnet  which  was  markedly  a romantic  form  of  poetry. 

In  the  middle  of  the  century  his  ”Elegy(^^a  Country  Church-yard” 
appeared.  Influences  of  other  vrarks  were  manifest  in  this  piece; 
notably  Brown’s  ”Urn  Burial,”  Parnell’s  "Pight  Piece,”  Blair’s 
"Grave,”  and  Young’s  "Night  Thoughts.”  The  "Elegy"  was  the 
climax  of  the  Grave-yard  school,  and  although  it  was  not  en- 
tirely romantic,  might  be  termed  the  turning,  point  in  that  direc- 
tion . 

His  "Progress  of  Poesy,”  a Pindaric  ode,  a.ppeared  in 
1754.  It  was  the  most  imaginative  of  all  Gray's  poetry,  and 
marked  him  as  a romanticist.  Of  it  there  were  numerous  criti- 
cisms. Johnson  said  concerning  iti.  "He  who  could  do  nothing 

1.  Goldsmith,  Oliver:  Beauties  of  English  Poetry:  (Moulton: 

Library  of  Literary  Criticism:  Vol.III.  Page  161;  New  York, 1910) 


• V 


? ■ 


% 


c 


1 


< 


/ 


I 


i - 


' 

m 


I 


-42- 


else  could  ivrite  like  Pindar^’” 

Gray  constantly  grew  farther  away  from  Qlassicisra, 
and  in  romantic  tendencies  surpassed  his  age.  He  cultivated  an 
interest  in  foreign  peoples,  using  Horse  and  Welsh  themes,  which 
had  not  heen  characteristic  of  Augustan  writers. 

His  writings  not  only  116001116  romantic,  hut  his  sym- 
pathies as  well.  He  liked  Walpole’s  ’’Castle  of  Otranto;”  v^as  a 
warm  friend  of  Hurd’s;  and  he  himself  said  he  had  ’’gone  mad”  about 
’’Ossian.”  His  feeling  for  nature  was  exceptionally  deep.  He 
preferred  country  to  city  life,  loved  melancholy,  and  appreciated 
wild  and  romantic  scenery. 

The  world,  in  the  main,  has  heen  kind  to  Gray,  hut  he 
was  criticized  unjustly  hy  Johnson.  It  v;as  I)r.  Johnson’s  opinion 
that  Gray  did  not  ranlv  high  as  a poet.  He  called  him  a ”raecha,n- 
ical  poetf”  and  with  his  usual  franloiess  compared  his  odes  to, 
’’forced  plants  raised  in  a hot  hed;  and  they  are  poor  plants; 
they  are  hut  cucumbers  after  all . ” When  Boswell  suggested 
Gray  might  he  dull  in  company  hut  not  in  poetry,  Johnson  replied, 
’’Sir,  he  was  dull  in  company,  dull  in  his  closet,  dull  every- 
where. He  was  dull  in  a new  way  that  made  many  people  think  him 
grea-o.  ” 

In  spite  of  all  these  harsh  rebukes,  Gray  has  ”in- 
fluenced  his  age  more  than  the  age  influenced  him.  ” He  should 

1.  Beers, Henry  A:  History  of  English  Romanticism  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century;Page  54:  Hew  York:i9I0. 

2.  Boswell’s  Life  Of  Johnson :Hill , George  B: Vol . II ,Pg.327 lOxford ,1887 

3.  Boswell's  Life  Of  Johnson :Hill , George  B: Vol . IV,Pg.l3 : Oxford,  1887 

4.  Boswell’s  Life  Of  Johns on: Hill , George  B:Vol .II ,Pg.327 :0xford,1887 

5.  Phelps , William  Lyons : The  Beginnings  of  the  English  Romantic 
Movement:  Page  170:  Boston: 1893. 


-43- 


hold  a more  important  place  in  the  romantic  movement  than  is 
usually  assigned  to  him,  for  according  to  Edmund  Gosse,  Gray 
was  the  most  important  poetical  figure  between  Pope  and  \7ord8- 
worth . 

Although  Horace  Walpole  was  one  of  the  first  novelists 
to  advance  romanticism,  he  v.-as  at  heart  an  Augustan.  He  con- 
sidered Pope  his  favorite  writer;  and  in  his  own  verses  used  a 
style  similar  to  that  of  the  poet.  He  regarded  the  works  of  Pope 
as  excellent  and  praised  them  highly.  The  "Dunciad,”  he  said, 
is  blemished  by  the  offensive  image  of  the  games;  but  the  poetry 
appears  to  be  admirable;  and  although  the  fourth  Book  has  ob- 
scurities, I prefer  it  to  the  three  others;  it  has  descriptions 
not  surpassed  by  any  poet  that  ever  existed,  and  which  surely  a 
writer  merely  ingenious  will  never  equal. In  one  of  his 
letters  to  Bentley  he  remarked  concerning  the  ’’Rape  of  the  Lock," 
"besides  the  originality  of  a great  part  of  the  invention;  it  is 

9 

a standard  of  graceful  vnritingT"  He  spoke  of  Pope’s  rich  English 
and  at  the  poet’s  death  remarked,  "Pope  and  poetry  are  dead.^" 

He  had  great  respect  for  Gray  but  did  not  approve  of 
his  romantic  vTitings.  He  expressed  disgust  for  "Ossian;"  was 
contemptuous  of  Spenser;  and  considered  Shakespeare’s  "Midsummer 
Bight’s  Bream"  "forty  times  more  nonsensical  than  the  worst 

4 

translation  of  any  Italian  Opera-books.  " Notwithstanding  all 

1.  Toynbee, Mrs. Paget :Letters  of  Horace  Walpole: Vol .XIII ,Pg. 283 ; 
Oxford:  1905. 

2.  Toynbee, Mrs .Paget :Letters  of  Horace  Walpole: Vol .XIII :Pg. 284 ; 
Oxford:  1905. 

3.  Toyhbee, Mrs  .Paget  :Letters  of  Horace  V/alpol e: Vol . II : Pg.  18; 

Oxford:  1903. 

4.  Toynbee, Mrs .Paget :Letters  of  Horace  Walpole : Vol . Ill : Pg.288; 

Oxford,  1903. 


-44- 


his  opposition  to  romantic  tendencies  and  his  great  respect  for 
Pope,  Walpole  unconsciously  furthered  romanticism. 

William  Cowper  (1731-1800)  showed  a mixture  of  class- 
ical and  romantic  tendencies  in  his  literature,  hut  in  the  main 
he  was  an  anti-classicist.  He  used  the  heroic-couplet  to  a small 
extent,  lA-hile  hlank-verse  he  employed  abundantly.  His  antagonism 
for  Johnson  was  personal  and  intense;  he  had  high  admiration  for 
Milton.  Having  so  great  a fondness  for  blank  verse  and  so  high 
a regard  for  the  poetry  of  Milton,  it  was  not  surprising  that  he 
censured  Pope  for  ’’making  poetry  a mere  mechanic  art^”  Gray  and 
Johnson  lauded  Pope’s  ”Homer,”  but  when  Cowper  and  a friend  com- 
pared Pope’s  translation  with  the  original  they  soon  discovered 
that  there  was  ’’hardly  a thing  in  the  world  of  which  Pope  was 

p 

so  utterly  destitute  as  a taste  for  Homer.  Cowper  considered 
Pope  a disgusting  letter  writer,  and  except  in  very  few  cases, 

3 

’’the  most  disagreeable  maker  of  epistles  he  ever  met  with.  ’* 

He  did  allow  him  the  title  of  poet,  but  much  preferred  Dryden. 
Cowper  was  an  important  figure  betv;een  Pope  and  Words v/orth,  and 
did  much  to  further  romanticism. 

George  Crabbe  (1754-1832)  came  at  a time  when  the 
reputation  of  Pope  was  ’’hanging  in  the  balance.”  The  new  liter- 
ary taste  of  romanticism  was  gradually  growing,  and  it  was  ques- 
tionable whether  the  severe  standards  of  the  Augustan  age  could 
satisfy  it.  A distinct  division  can  hardly  be  made  between  the 

1.  Beers,  Henry  A:  History  of  English  Romanticism  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century;  Page  53:  Hew  York:  1910. 

2.  Boswell’s  Life  of  Johnson:  Hill, George  B:Vol.III.  Page  257: 

Oxf 0 rd , 1 887 . 

3.  Wright,  Thomas:  Correspondence  of  William  Cowper:  Vol . I :Pg .196 ; 
Hew  York;  1904 . 


ud 


• ‘ 'C  ' .* ' • V 

•)  j f ^ <»WO£f«  OGf' 

•...?  •';  , ' 2/  . '.r<  rt2 

V ;'’  .ir(^  . 


V W* 


• on  :•,  > ; 


' 

t“i>-  ~p 

'V  ,MI 

IT 

MCTi 

ft.tA’  ’d 

* 

'T.-t  «Mrl 

• if*  ‘M  r . 1 


’ *w  it 


< c ^ \ar‘ 


•'  ti^nix  " /o  * 'i  I : _ :..  arr’ 


TO. 


to: 


r >■  I* 


<4w'. 


'0  -* 


ior  0 1 


' *■*-,•*  ’ 


i u^isi  ; 


f ;,  ^ jTi 


•f:'^ 


1" 


-45- 


Old  and  the  new  movement;  hut  Crahhe  seems  to  come  between  the 
two  ages . 

In  the  new  school  of  poetry  the  works  of  Crahhe  gave 

the  first  evidences  of  the  realistic  movement.  In  his  earlier 

work  he  preceded  Cowper  and  Wordsworth,  ■^e  discarded  the  use  of 

conventional  imagery  and  strictly  attended  to  the  realities  of 

scenery.  Throughout  his  life  he  had  a keen  sense  of  observation, 

and  he  pictured  life  as  he  saw  it.  He  gave  only  the  hare  truths 

without  fancy.  His  conception  of  life  tends  toward  pessimism, 

and,  as  Francis  Palgrave  said,  "nature  mth  him  is  seen  in  her 

hare  simplicity, --aus tere  often,  sometimes  ugly  in  her  nakedness!" 

Hazlitt  criticized  him  because  he  vncote  about  the  country  and  the 

country  life,  "only  to  take  the  charm  out  of  it,  and  to  dispel  the 

illusion,  the  glory,  and  the  dream,  which  have  lowered  over  it  in 

2 

golden  verse  from  Theocritus  to  Cowper.  " 

Crahhe  had  a depth  of  feeling  and  a genuine  pathos  which 
Pope  did  not  possess.  In  description  Crahhe  wrote  what  he  saw; 
Pope  described  the  outstanding  things.  The  satire  in  his  works 
is  also  distinctive  from  Pope’s.  He  had  a clear  understanding  of 
human  nature  and  a sympathetic  feeling  for  the  frailties  of  man. 
Because  of  these  conceptions  of  life  he  did  not  satirize  his  per- 
sonal enemies  as  Pope  did;  hut  he  aimed  his  criticism  at  mankind 
in  general.  Crahhe’s  satire  has  no  similiarity  with  the  "fiercely 
personal  and  hitter  attacks"  of  Pope,  except  in  style. 

1.  Palgrave,  Francis:  Landscape  in  Poetry .( Charles  Moulton: 

Library  of  Literary  Criticism^Vol . V;Pg.l77 : Hew  York,  1910; 

2.  Waller  and  Glover :Hazlitt ’s  Collected  Works :Vol . TV, Pg .351 : 
London,  1902. 


0/ ' 1 • - v-.i.  c 8<’  yH.\*  ; 'f'j  _m''-  \Z^. 


ir  ■ f'l:  r . iS'  , v)Vv.  ■ ' i'  ' j-x  9.  i ■ f 

■ t:  i;f»  'j  ^ . j.'sfTOTT'SA-i:  s teiptO^  t^h»a  i r ••  ’ :-rrCA- 

t’;.  * (.V  I«rri'  : 'firTOi  *;<ovnr'^ 

; .'■  . ’’  0-  . • a h0i  s'*  ■•■  ',»  ' ' . 

; «'a  / Jw  : f;:  '.■vr.j;  o!  »*ilf:  i>i< 

, -:b  ■ q V•  ::^  ; r ‘-:-j?JtCO  a.'i  . {£'  J ■-  ’w.j 

't-j;:  : rr^'-  . 2 :uLi  n"X^-  *7  ‘ ' '■*  : ''C'iufy.\  € ' 

; »tO:i  .:.:r  -.*•  , ■' - . »V  ^ / i?';  •- -••• , .^ -t  0.  ‘i  i J *'T. 

Vi  * •'.•■.  ■:'it  . ,0  0 Dp.'i  :‘ . T."  0^ • ■ -;i,  '■os.icltx'xo  Ji'i.C  ::* 

c.;*  I'.*  ‘ !.'  , J J:  Ic  v-vo  ; :£ac'  ^ni  :i'  'c  Lic  , '^  ,-•1  v'l.tjfs/c  :■ 

: ( ;1  c < ■'  . ^L';:-o:..r  ••rnr;  liciti':-  a**-  tTSdii.  , a .l-i*.' C \2;  ■ 

‘’qwoO  .-  0X03 

rici.i'"  '-’i.  " ..  . o'  c :2«?qs>ib  .'''  vt- 

;vc-^  o.  v-jilvv”  « ''■•:-••  ' ■ 2 , .'x  :i  : .;?  off- 

■1  ,>  ;•.*  r.  o./’T  . tini  e- bod’lTP^iafs 


j'o  / i / , 'v  ooo'  s .'cTx, 


. . . n 

' : ]’•  0 - ' 

..  - . /j  'o-  &' 

TV* 'O':  ■’.-.  :;n 

r'r  0 j*£  ;: 

r ' • ^ 

f--‘  • r ' ‘ 

i ‘■ooi  :rr;-  0 !■ 

^1  ^ 1' '.-/  c-fSL 

' ■ ' /{o”'  s X 0 ki  .'.'1  ■ 

.■  '., : 'vv&ffi  1 0 o r + • , 

, ;L;^  ; u,: 

r^^cfc 

' " os  ; .rv  .:* , 

• .,  , V - ^.-. 

.-.  i --  J . -1-.  • 

i'l  .. .'!  ro: 

. ■ '.  i 

, <)  T C“T  '‘0  ** 

r.i,  * ^ ■ 

• Xi:T>3»i( 

t 

• I'  o''  to  • ^*€t  -^.'T ' ' 

. _ ' >0'I  f!i  ‘ 

' ;o inlo,  . , 

• ' r '•*  -■•  ' ; 

. oV^.^oXo'’; 

■■■/to'.  ' '. 

. • * • . . - 

.^j>fX._6L:  f;* 

1,  orv 

T?!, 

*<  C ..li 


-46- 


Unlike  his  differences  in  realism  and  satire,  Crahhe’s 
style  shows  a predominant  influence  of  Pope.  His  verses  were 
written  in  the  heroic-couplet,  and  in  some  of  his  early  poems  he 
adopted  the  didactic  method.  He  was  not  only  a faithful  disciple 
of  the  couplet,  hut  was  also  an  adherent  to  the  "shut”  couplet. 
Later  in  his  life  he  did  deviate  somewhat  from  the  standards  of 
Classicism,  conmitting  errors  which  Pope  would  have  severely  con- 
demned. But  on  the  whole,  Crahhe  consistently  followed  the 
heroic-couplet,  and  Pope  governed  the  meter  of  his  verse  through- 
out his  life. 

So  it  was  that  Crahhe , influenced  hoth  hy  classicism  and 
romanticism,  stood  “peculiarly  alone  in  his  generation.”  He 
successf’ully  combined  the  characteristics  of  the  Augustan  Age 
and  those  of  the  Lake  school,  and  was  very  important  at  this 
turning  point  in  English  literature. 

With  the  influx  of  revolutionary  forces  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century  came  new  impulses  in  the  literary 
movement.  To  these  the  English  poets  frequently  responded.  Es- 
pecially was  this  new  spirit  apparent  in  the  works  of  Robert  Burns- 
almost  to  the  degree  of  enthusiasm.  Some  writers  have  been  ad- 
mired for  their  polish;  others  respected  for  their  philosophy; 
Robert  Burns  was  loved  for  his  whole-hearted,  “blood— warm”  verses. 
The  Scotch  bard  sang  in  an  unrestrained  tune  and  with  unsuppressed 
emotion.  His  poetry  was  distinctive  in  its  fervor,  and  in  its 
striking  simplicity.  'IThen  we  compare  the  dignified  and  polished 
verses  of  Pope  with  the  spontaneous  outbursts  of  Burns,  the 


n ' 0 


W W »-•  r .It 


■ r-  .:.  < o '; 


j''’^'  i?y  :>':  ' 

‘jr-i  'ifTtiy.*  air 

o ■ .■  •'  li/"  ■• 


,ti.. 


<'  ?i 


•»  r£  c 


1 r 


0-j 


iil  £ •.  S' ‘ 


'.'iw*  ■_  '.  IJ3T  : ■ , -Xi;cci  j .v^  h 


j •:  t r:o  - ':  - uVft^Cc  i'--.  '■>  ' i ■'  >r!  ‘T  ii  •-f.'i  ftX  X^tg 
-r  j")  ■ /J'i-yT.o •'■:  r**'-’  :’  .*’•  >.  ;i/.'  ■ ‘: 

:*.{j  ^D-v'  ■':-^  r'C':  .•  d". 

JC-'t;'*  1'  5..,^ 


■’•r'..-  :.;.  £ ,*£’axr  . . ix?  £. 

X %. 

cl  < l 


'X 


rin  1 0 .!  r;  r « r n \;cf 

Jtf 

'■>oc  V 1 ,€ ■ 1 •.'?;'l'  •' 

«4  • * 

<.  ' . 

t 

• ;i  y.:of 

33'*  - 

V ::.  i • -r.? 

lo 

col,-  .■ij.''^OIs3  -^'''^  OJ'f 

v“ ' - 

'llKcf  ‘ * 'O'*’  ■' 

^ V 

L'“V  '</  r ^ ‘'.L,  ya 

£•:■>-.  j,  ?>i. 

* *£  Jl  ^ ^ T 

• : 

^ r 

•..j*  . 

A ■>  1 ' if-:  '*'  ■ - 

■ 

: '/C?-;!  C' . -’ 

A&.  ■'.  ti-'l 

• ^ , ^ .-.-r  ■:■ 

c X'l 

‘ fiO!) 

•.  ^ A 

, \ 

•v^> : ' 1 

T,-. : 

« 4 

; 

»•  - 

t 

■'■•  ; , /a* 

t * . ‘ 

: T . . .i'  f C:^  iar 

V j'."' ? O'*  i, '';/  ' ’ ■* 

’.  '5  n«  ■ 

:rc  : , 

<4' 

: vi  : . 

\ 'i 

„,L:'  ^C1  ■•  1 ■; , 

::t 

S ' " u'r,;  iq'"  ■ 0 aw  r. 

0 *■ 

, 'CCi^Ofi.TC-X 


- .£  ; 


>■  •,-•-)■ 


ij*':  It  : a 'MXL'fJ 


1 — ^ '■* 


-47- 


classical  works  seem  almost  "cold  and  pedantic.”  Burns  loved 
nature.  He  was  concerned  in  the  common  things  of  life.  Because 
of  these  interests  he  described  life  as  it  actually  appeared  to 
him;  he  depicted  nature  in  the  most  realistic  manner. 

In  the  world  of  literature  Cowper  is  often  termed  the 

”dawn”  of  a new  era  5 Burns  is  termed  the  ’’sunrise.”  In  his 

poetry  the  Sco tollman  bred  the  naturalness  and  conviviality  of  his 

personality.  His  impulsive  nature  seemed  to  fling  aside  the 

standards  set  by  the  Augustan  writers.  Hone  of  the  reformers 

as  yet  had  dared  to  be  passionate  in  their  i^ritings.  Cov;per  had 

attempted  no  passion  but  that  of  ’’religious  despair.”  Crabbe's 

passion  was  limited  to  a ’’grim  contemplation  of  the  miseries  and 

1 

disappointments  of  life;  ” while  all  the  passion  of  Blake  ’’had 
conveyed  itself  into  the  channel  of  mystical  dreaming.  Burns  was 
the  premier  in  passionate  writings.  He  gave  vent  to  the  ’’passion 
of  war,  passion  of  conviviality,”  and  above  all  to  the  ’’passion 
of  love.  ” In  voicing  passion  he  has  never  been  surpassed  by 
the  greatest  poets.  This  emotional  warmth  of  verse  was  one  of 
his  marked  contributions  to  the  age. 

Hot  only  did  his  freedom  loving  nature  rebel  against 
oppression,  but  it  caused  him  to  disregard  the  conventions  and 
rules  which  had  been  established  by  the  Augustan  leaders.  His 
verse  did  not  conforra  to  the  models;  it  took  on  a new  form  of 
freedom.  In  his  verse  form  he  depended  on  his  Scotch  predecess- 
ors in  preference  to  the  classical  models.  He  imitated  freely 

1.  Saints Dury , George ; A History  of  nineteenth  Century  Literature; 

Page  17;  Hew  York:  1909. 

2.  Saintsbury , George : A History  of  nineteenth  Century  Literature; 

Page  15;  Hew  York:  1909. 


-48- 


frora  Hamilton  and  Fergusson,  Tout  particularly  did  he  take  from 
Ramsay.  In  following  these  men  he  wrote  with  ease,  for  he  was 
a master  in  the  vernacular — a style  which  was  innate.  The 

superiority  of  his  Scotch  over  his  English  works  proved  him  the 
"better  in  his  own  tongue.  TVhen  he  attempted  to  write  in  the 
heroic- couplet  the  product  was  clumsy  and  was  "sprinkled  with 
touches  of  natural  oToservation"  - quite  foreign  to  ^Pope.  His 
spirit  of  freedom  seemed  to  prevent  him  from  succ-essfuly  imitating 
the  Augustan  writers. 

Thus  the  dissention  from  the  reign  of  classicism  can  o"b- 
viously  he  traced.  The  offerings  of  the  Scotch  hard  seemed  to 
satisfy  a desire  in  the  mind  of  the  age  for  something  different; 
and,  at  least  for  a time,  the  free,  passionate,  and  unrestrained 
poetry  of  "Bohhie"  Bums  abounded  in  popularity. 

William  Lisle  Bowles  (1762-1350)  was  as  much  an  anti- 
Augustan  as  Cowper  and  Bums  had  been.  His  "Fourteen  Sonnets, 
written  chiefly  on  Picturesque  Spots  during  a Journey"  show  that 
Bowles  had  little  sympathy  with  Pope,  because  the  style  in  itself 
is  reactionary.  Wordsworth  and  Coleridge  were  both  fascinated 
with  this  v;ork,  and  in  the  latter  poet  it  aroused  a wild  enthu- 
siasm. All  the  poetical  works  of  Bowles  were  simple,  earnest, 
and  true,  pervaded  throughout  with  a warm  and  tender  sentiment. 

The  mild  qualities  of  his  poetry  are  a great  contrast  to  the 
sincerity  and  pugnacity  of  his  prose. 

Bowles  is  not  remembered  for  his  poetic  works,  but  like 
Boswell  to  Johnson,  he  is  known  through  his  edition  of  Pope, 


: 07’^  ■■ 

, • ; . L>  f • *TX‘  7 

> •*  * 

•f  1 . 

■ Jlr;  f»;^c'rr  ? ■ 

■ ■ 

• 

. . j.  ^ \ 

• / 

• i . • V 

.1  ' * - . ,. , A 

* r :•  • • p::*  * ‘i  o f 

A J ’J*  ■ 

--  .f:'*  i r. 

. - •/;'  r-r';;/ 

* 

. ci  j:luf  - 

-4  *.  ?. 

.»  1 

:q‘C.  . .r“^ 

• - r j 

i c 1 a 3 . 

' ■ 

* ./  • 4 * ' 'i  ' O 1 ^-4  4 gk  « 

* (^•y^  • 

- ; t:  • . a 

“I  A ^j}/i  ?>r;i 

. ? » .V  ^ 

, . . i ■ M ^ 

'•'X  •;.;  : 

...  . 

t ’ 

:;  ; p:  i 

-i.  - ' 

. ;v 

V f *,  ^.- 

. '.iov  * " 

i.  ' ..JOftcT 

. .‘i’  v'C:.' 

a " .•  ",v:»/X.  'Ll 

-rr>*Xfr{* 

:9»ii  tti 

r £v-^  0 9 

. ^ i>ts  , 

1 : :.: 

V.'  f’i 

- !d 

b"'-’'  i?  ■- 

'xa  Si  Svo'^  T 

•*•  J-,  . '-r 

« . ‘*J*  i J 

* ^ ** 

: ' ::..  ';c;u"  't 

. :■.  • ■ ■ 

■ • ' • p ?r 

. ‘ ■-  v;  £ "J 

. >c':. 

: i; 

« •.  '■  oi.^»>ocr  eirf  TfOt 

■ :.n  'X'.Si 

-49- 


This  edition  (1806)  appeared  in  ten  voluTnes,  with  a sketch  of 
his  life  and  criticisms  on  his  poetry.  Buffhead  and  Johnson  had 
written  a Life  in  praise  of  Pope;  Joseph  Warton,  with  Bowles 
following  in  his  footsteps,  wrote  in  criticism  of  the  poet.  The 
Life  prefixed  to  this  edition  brought  about  a violent  controversy 
on  the  question  of  Pope’s  title  to  poet.  Bowles  placed  him  in 
the  same  class  to  which  Warton  had  assigned  him, --at  the  head  of 
the  second  rank  poets,  Bowles  stood  alone  in  this  controversy 
against  Campbell,  Byron,  Roscoe,  Octavi’os  Gilchrist,  and  the 
"Ciuarterly  Review,"  until  later  when  Southey,  Hazlitt,  and  *Biack- 
woodb  Magazine’  aided  him.  William  Clark  Russel  gives  a very 
concise  account  of  this  quarrel.  "Mr.  Bowles  wrote  a book  upon 
Pope.  Mr.  Campbell  abused  Mr.  Bowler’s  book  upon  Pope.  Mr. 

Bowles  wrote  an  answer  to  Mr.  Campbell’s  abuse  of  Mr.  Bowles’s 
book  on  Pope.  Lord  Byron  wrote  a letter  to  certain  stars  in 
Albermarle  street  in  an  answer  to  Mr.  Bowles’s  answer  to  Mr. 
Campbell’s  abuse  of  Mr.  Bowles’s  book  on  Pope.  Jeremy  Bentham, 
Esq.,  wrote  a letter  to  Lord  Byron  about  Lord  Byron’s  letter  to 
certain  stars  in  Albermarle  street,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Bowles’s 
answer  to  Mr.  Campbell’s  abuse  of  Mr.  Bowles’s  book  on  Pope.  Here 
the  controversy  ended,  leaving  each  disputant  more  thoroughly 
satisfied  with  his  own  judgment.^" 

Although  it  has  often  been  urged  that  Bowles  was  biased 
against  Pope,  it  is  quite  agreed  that  he  was  thoroughly  versed 
in  his  subject..  His  doctrine  indeed  did  not  waver  under  the 

1.  RusseB,  William  Clark:  The  Book  of  Authors  (Moulton,  Charles; 

Library  of  Literary  Cri ticism: )Hew  York:  1910. 


**  1 


i I 


V 


• Jl 


n 


I 


•t  i:  a-  ■ •' 


Wjf  iTT^ssg^ 


-50- 


attacke  of  his  opponents.  And  ultimately  Bowles  maintained  his 
purpose  in  establishing  his  three  contentions,  that  ”Pope  was 
only  at  the  head  of  the  second  rank  of  poets-- that,  as  a man, 
he  was  guilty  of  many  meannesses,  and  had  a prurient  imagination 
and  pen--and  that  the  objects  of  artificial  life  are,  per  se, 
less  fitted  for  the  purposes  of  poetry  than  those  of  nature,  and 
than  the  passions  of  the  human  heart. Throughout  the  entire 
edition  an  extreme  anti-Augustan  attitude  v/as  prevalent,  and  the 
vjork  was  a strong  factor  in  the  decline  of  Pope’s  reputation* 

V/illiam  V/’ords'v^'orth  (1770-1850)  had  little  sympathy  v;ith 
the  school  of  Pope.  He  did  not  agree  vdth  the  Augustans  in  regard 
to  diction,  to  the  purpose  of  poetry,  nor  to  their  conception  of 
realism.  The  Classical  writers  considered  it  the  purpose  of 
poetry  to  instruct,  and  quite  late  in  the  eighteenth  century 
Samuel  Johnson  held  strict  didactic  views-.  They  wrote  for  the 
higher  classes  rather  than  for  all  mankind.  These  ideas  of  Pope 
and  his  imitators  were  quite  different  from  those  held  by  Words- 
worth. The  peet  laureate  believed  the  object  of  poetry  was  to 
please;  to  amuse  not  only  conventional,  man,  but  universal  men. 

In  speaking  of  the  purpose  of  poetry  Wordsworth  said,  ’’The  poet 
^^^rites  under  one  restriction,  namely,  the  necessity  of  giving 
immediate  pleasure  to  a human  Being,  possessed  of  that  information 
which  m^3^  be  expected  from  him,  not  as  a lawyer,  a physician,  a 
mariner,  an  astronomer,  or  a natural  philosopher,  but  as  a man.^” 

1.  Gilfillan,  George:  Political  Works  of  William  Lisle  Bowles: 
Vol.II:  Page  15;  Edinburgh:  1855. 

2.  George,  A.J:  Wordsworth’s  Prefaces  and  Essays  on  Poetry: 

Page  16;  Boston:  1892. 


-51- 


mien  Wordsworth  first  began  to  write  he  had  a tendency 
to  imitate  the  models.  Soon,  however,  he  rebelled  against  mere 
forms  and  conventions.  He  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "my  purpose  is 
to  imitate,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  adopt  the  vei^^  language 
of  men — have  taken  as  much  pains  to  avoid  v/hat  is  usually 
called  poetic  diction  as  others  ordinarily  take  to  produce  it.^" 
V;"ordsworth  followed  this  conception  as  closely  as  was  possible. 
Simplicity  is  one  of  the  main  characteristics  of  his  poetry. 

Among  the  poets  of  England,  Wordsworth  has  been  rightly 
called  "nature’s  great  interpreter."  His  admiration  for  nature 
was  BO  high,  his  understanding  so  deep  and  sympathetic,  that 
perforce  he  would  describe  it  truly  and  accurately.  Wordsworth 
disliked  the  poetry’  of  Pope  because  it  possessed  no  traces  of 
emotion  and  imagination,  but  it  was  the  poet's  artifical  descrip- 
tion of  nature  which  was  particularly  disgusting  to  him.  He 
sho?/ed  this  disapproval  ?7hen  he  said,  "To  what  a law  state  know- 
ledge of  the  most  obvious  and  important  phenomena  had  sunk,  is 
evident  from  the  style  in  which  Pryd.en  has  executed  a description, 
of  Eight  in  one  of  his  Tragedies,  and  Pope  his  translation  of  the 
celebrated  moonlight  scenes  in  the  "Illiad."  A blind  man  in  the 
habit  of  attending  accurately  to  description might  easily  depict 

O 

these  appearances  with  more  truth. 

A different  phase  of  the  romantic  movement  was  presented 
by  the  works  of  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  (1772-1834.)  His  was 
the  fanciful,  supernatura.1 , imaginative  poetry,  and  his  romances 

Vv'ere  written  out  of  "such  stuff  as  dreams  are  made  of." 

1.  George,  A.J:  Wordsworth’s  Prefaces  and  Essays  on  Pcctry:Pame  8:* 
Boston:l892.  > 

Worosworth,  billiami  Poetry  as  a Study  • (^lioul ton, Chari es  i Library 

■■  n-.  T.-.  t.-tn-iRrr,.  Vnl  T T T » P.-.' , T ^ 


C-1  to 


-52- 


He  disliked  the  pseudo-classical  school.  He  said, 

"From  the  common  opinion  that  the  English  style  attained  its 
greatest  perfection  in  and  about  Q,ueen  Anne’s  reign,  I altogether 
dissent.^*'  Because  of  this  prejudice,  Coleridge  did  not  consider 
himself  a competent  judge  of  the  Augustan  school.  "I  was  not 
blind  to  the  merits  of  the  school,”  he  said,  ”yet  as  from  inex- 
perience of  the  world,  and  consequent  want  of  sympathy  with  the 
general  subjects  of  these  poems  they  gave  me  little  pleasure,  I 
doubtless  undervalued  the  kind,  and  with  the  presumption  of  youth 
mthheld  from  the  masters  the  legitimate  narue  of  poets. 

Haslitt  evidently  recognized  the  critical  ability  of  Coleridge  for 

he  said.  ”Mr,  Coleridge threv;  a great  stone  into  the  standing 

pool  of  criticism,  which  splashed  some  persons  with  the  mud,  but 
which  gave  a motion  to  the  serr^ice  and  a reverberation  to  the 
neighboring  echoes,  v;hich  has  not  since  subsided.  ” Although 
Coleridge  modestly  believed  himself  to  be  no  fair  judge  of  class- 
ical poetry,  his  reputation  as  a critic  of  the  eighteenth  century 
rates  him  with  Ben  Johnson  and  Bryden — the  best  critics  of  the 
Seventeenth  century.  He  was  one  of  the  most  important  romantic 
crii/ics,  and  the  fact  that  the  poetry  of  Pope  held  little  pleasure 
for  Coleridge  showed  a decline  in  Pope’s  reputation. 

The  name  of  Robert  Southey  (1774—1845)  is  usually 
connected  v;ith  those  of  Wordsworth  and  Coleridge.  He  is  classed 
in  this  group  because  he  was  closely  associated  in  friendly  rela- 
tions, and  was  quite  as  romantic.  Saintsbury  speaks  of  him  as  a 

1.  Professor  Shedd:  Complete  Works  of  Samuel  Taylor  Coleride*e: 
Vol.iy’;Pg.341 ; Hew  York;i868. 

• Coleridge, Se.muel : EiograjJhia  Literaria:  Vol.I.Pg.ll:  Oxford, 1007. 
. V/aller  and  Glover:  The  Collected  Works  of  William  Hazlitf 
Vol.IV:  Pg.212:  Hew  York:  1902. 


-53- 


poct  ’’ranking  lower  than  either  Vfordsworth  or  Coleridge,  hut  hav- 
ing done  far  more  to  popularise  the  general  theory  of  romantic 
poetry  than  either.^”  Like  Wordsworth  and  Coleridge  he  rebelled 
against  poetic  conventions;  he  considered  the  poetry  of  the  class- 
ical school  no  special  evidence  of  genius,  ’’The  art  of  poetry”, 
he  said,  ”or  rather  the  art  of  versification,  v;hich  was  now  the 
same  thing,  \vas  made  easy  to  the  meanest  capacity,^” 

Southey’s  chief  poems  were  romantic  and  adventurous.  He 
experimented  in  forms  of  verse,  and  had  a v;ide  range  of  subjects. 
His  studies  in  foreign  literature  added  much  tc  the  romantic  ma- 
tei'ial.  This  third  member  of  the  Lake  school  v^as  enthusiastic, 
extreme,  revolutionary— a man,  ’’not  cast  in  the  mould  of  other 
men’s  opinions,  not  shaped  on  any  model,  a,nd  bov/ing  to  no  author- 
ity,  ” Southey  did  not,  hesitate  to  attack  the  works  of  Pope, 
and  boldly  gave  his  opinion  of  him,  ’’The  age  of  Pope  was  the 
golden  age  of  poets, --but  it  was  the  pinchbeck  age  of  poetry,  The^'’ 
flourished  in  the  sunshine  of  public  and  private  patronage;  the 
art  meantime  was  debased,  and  it  coiitinued  to  be  as  long  as  Pope 
continued  lord  of  ascendant.  More  injury  was  not  done  to  the 
taste  of  his  countrymen  by  Marino  in  Italy,  ncr  by  Congor  in  Spain, 
than  by  Pope  in  England,  The  mischief  was  effected  not  by  his 
satirical  and  moral  pieces,  for  these  entitle  him  to  the  highest 
place  among  poets  of  his  class;  it  was  by  his  Homer.  There  have 
been  other  versions  as  unfaithful;  but  none  v/ere  ever  so  well  ex- 

1,  Saintsburj’’,  George:  History  of  nineteenth  Century  Literature; 

Page  69:  Hew  York:  1909, 

2,  Southey, Robert:  Life  and  Works  of  William  Cowper:  Vol.II.Pg.i42* 

London:  1636,  a ^ 

3,  Waller  and  Glover:  The  Collected  Works  of  William  Hazlitt: 
Vol.IV,  Pg.265:  ITew  York:  1902, 


-54- 


ecuted  in  as  tad  a style;  and  no  other  work  in  the  English  lan- 
guage so  greatly  vitiated  the  diction  of  English  poetry.  Coimnon 
readers  (aind  the  majority  must  always  he  such)  will  always  he 
taken  hy  glittering  faults,  as  larks  are  caught  hy  hits  of  looking 
glass,  and  in  this  raereticious  translation,  the  passages  that 
V7ere  most  unlike  the  original,  which  were  most  untrue  to  nature, 
and  therefore  most  false  in  taste,  were  precisely  those  which 
were  most  applauded,  and  on  which  critic  after  critic  dwelt  with 
one  cuckoo  note  of  admiration.^"”  With  a nature  so  free  and  un- 
restrained; a nature  that  loved  freedom  and  hated  conventions,  it 
is  only  natural  that  ^Southey,  should  have  a strong  dislike  for 
Pope  and  his  imitators. 

COHCLUPIOIT. 

Alexander  Pope  reigned  supreme  in  the  Augustan  age,  hut 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  his  influence  began 
to  wane.  This  decline  in  his  popularity  was  evident  in  the  de- 
crease of  the  editions  of  his  works.  Joseph  Warton  was  the  first 
writer  to  openly  criticize  him.  Ruffhead  wrote  a "Life  of  Pope" 
to  dispraise  V/arton’s  volumes,  and  to  re- establish  the  fame  of 
Pope.  This  hook  was  practically  a failure.  During  the  last  years 
of  the  centur;}"  and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  there 
were  a few  writers  who  staunchly  defended  Pope;  some  followed 
him  in  their  first  years  and  later  deviated  from  him;  others 
admired  him  and  yet  unconsciously  followed  romantic  tendencies; 

1*  Southey,  Robert:  Life  and  Works  of  Williara  Cowner:  Vol  II: 

Page  141:  London,  1836. 


-■V  ^ 'Hif 


:^rr  .£  - 


. : v--'./  f 


4 ...  » 

t ‘ •' 


nc  :•  • ■•  ' . 

! : 

' ^ & a 

^ fj^T,  ■ : ■ : 

,•  \ • • •'  < ' * '■^ 

‘ J . ** 

'.'tv  i'io 

-:t>‘  •'  uJ  w v.:":; 

i-Jk  f- 

tis  i fr 

\ iV-*;* 

^ ■;  i:  ‘‘  : 11'  ':-  :c 

’ J t ' f. 


ffi:  :-:tu[--r^ 


.. 


(•  .•n'^ 


,-:JO' 


4 


3;._<  v(jtf;r;4  .i'v  •'•  j.\  ' :• 


; , \ " :.f»  ' r-'  •’».*> 

; c m ’c  : ' rt  r 

r -<•. i O'X  •..‘{>rx-..---  \XHP<ito‘2-r--^  ' • 

r- « 

' : ‘v'-i • iix  1 |;X?-  .V 


■Ni-' 


-55- 


Tidnile  a few  outwardly  attacked  him.  Oh  the  v/hole,  the  defendants 
of  Pope  hecame  fewer  and  fewer,  and  the  established  standards  of 
classicism  were  gradually  replaced  by  the  liberties  of  romanticism. 


,^Ia.i4^*  a/itf  frJ  ,tti/l  f>^a^o^^Ji^  w»l  « | 


“to  r 7»f{p:  r£'iJfiC5  ,^/t#  ',*ts;y«*  6‘f«' iwot  wcaoosf  ^ 

’*.  ,r-  ,.5 

iry5oii\^0*l  lo  i?iJt»'/fi:  6rf^  'Cif  feonal^d**  ^££4HiH\^  ^tvrr  FOjtoiatifx 


**  \ 


m 


r 

> * i / 

4 

^ ■*  ' 

<} 

".  t ' 

^ , 

’ m ’X 

'■:'4  i 


IB 

I 

■ . i '^  . * ' 


>.'  'M^mf  ia«>*»tjji  Ji' 


-56- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Ainger,  Alfred;  CrabLe:  London:  1903. 

Beers,  Henry  A;  History  of  English  Konanticisrn  in  the  Eighteenth 

Centuri*:  ITew  York;  1910. 


History  of  English  Romanticism  in  the  nineteenth 
Century:  Rev/  York;  1910. 

Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson;  Hill,  George  B.  VI  Volumes; 

Oxford:  1887. 

Clark,  J. Scott;  A Study  of  Englisli  and  American  Poets: 

ITev;  York;  1900. 

Coleridge,  Samuel:  Eiographia  Literaria  I:  Oxford:  1907. 

George,  A. J ; Wordsworth’s  Prefaces  and  Essays  on  Poetry; 

Boston;  1692. 

Gilfillan,  George:  Poetical  Works  of  William  Lisle  Bowles  II; 

Edinburgh;  1855. 

Gosse,  Edmund;  Some  Biversions  of  a Kan' of  Letters ; London;1919. 

Two  Pioneers  of  Romanticism;  Joseph  and  Thomas 
Warton : Oxford : 1915. 

Gray’s  Works:  London:  1884, 

Historj’’  of  Eighteenth  Centuri*-  literature: 

London;  1907. 


Harper,  George; 
Henley,  W.E: 
Herford,  C.H: 
Huchon,  Rene; 
Johnson’s  Lives 


William  Wordsvrarth  I:  Hew  York;  1916. 

Burns;  Edinburgh;  1898. 

The  Age  of  Wordsworth;  London;  1909. 

George  Crabbe  and .His  Times:  Hew  York;  1907. 

of  the  EnglishPoets : Hill,  George  E.III. 

Oxford;  1905. 


i. 


» 


-57- 


Kebbel,  T.E.:  Life  of  George  Crabbe:  London:  1888. 

Ker,  William  Paton:  Thomas  Warton:  London:  1910. 

Magnus,  Laurie:  English  Literature  in  the  Nineteenth  Centui-y: 

Few  York:  1909. 

Maty,  M:  Miscellaneous  Works  of  Lord  Chesterfield: 

London:  1778. 


Morley,  John:  English  Men  of  Letters:  XXII  Volumes: 

Few  York:  1907. 

Moulton,  Charles:  Library  of  Literary  Criticism;  VIII  Volumes; 

Fev;  York:  1910, 

Feilson,  W,A. : Burns  and  How  to  Know  Him:  Indianapolis:  1917; 

Ficoll  and  Seccombe :His tcry  of  English  Literature:  Few  York:  1907. 

Perry, Thomas  Sergeant:  English  Literature  in  the  Eighteenth 

Century:  Few  York:  1883, 

Phelps,  William  Lyon:  Beginnings  of  the  English  Romantic  Move- 
ment: Boston:  1893. 

Pope’s  Works:  Elwin  and  Courthope  IV:  London:  1886. 

Rinaker,  Clarissa-  Thomas  TTarton,  A Biographical  and  Critical 

Study.  Third  Chapter  of  the  complete  Thesis 
reprinted  from  the  Publications  of  the  "Modern 
Language  Association  of  America,  XXX: 
Baltimore:  1915. 


Ruf fhead , Owen : 
Saintsbury,  George: 

Shedd,  Professor: 
Southey,  Robert: 


Life  of  Alexander  Pope:  London:  1769. 

A History  of  Criticism, III : Few  York:  1904. 

A History  of  Nineteenth  Century  Literature: 
Few  York:  1909, 

Complete  Works  of  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge. IV: 
Few  York:  1868. 

Life  and  Works  of  William  Co\7per,II:  London; 


Stephen  and  Lee: 


Dictionary  of  National  Biography , XXI  Volumes; 
Few  York:  1908. 


) 


-58- 


Toynbee,  Mrs.  Paget: 

Waller  and  Glover: 
Ward,  Thomas  Humphrey 
War ton,  Joseph: 

Wooll,  John: 

Wright,  Thomas: 

Wylie,  Laura  Johnson: 
Critical  Review  I: 


Letters  of  Horace  Walpole, II,  III,  XIII: 
Oxford:  1903  and  1905. 

Hazlitt's  Collected  Works, IV:  London:  1902. 

:The  English  Poets, III,  IV:  Hew  York:  1907; 

Essay  on  the  Genius  and  Writings  of  Pope, 

I,  II:  London:  1806. 

Memoirs  of  Joseph  Warton:  London:  1806. 

Correspondence  of  William  Cowper  I: 

Hew  York:  1904. 

Social  Studies  in  English  Literature: 

Boston:  1916.  Periodicals. 


London:  1756:  LIII:  London:  1782:  XXVII: 

London:  1769. 


